[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0015270]: Bad handling of 488 answer to re-invite
Asterisk Bug Tracker
noreply at bugs.digium.com
Tue Sep 22 09:43:31 CDT 2009
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
======================================================================
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=15270
======================================================================
Reported By: atca_pres
Assigned To:
======================================================================
Project: Asterisk
Issue ID: 15270
Category: Channels/chan_sip/General
Reproducibility: always
Severity: minor
Priority: normal
Status: feedback
Asterisk Version: SVN
JIRA:
Regression: No
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): 1.4
SVN Revision (number only!): 199022
Request Review:
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 2009-06-04 10:08 CDT
Last Modified: 2009-09-22 09:43 CDT
======================================================================
Summary: Bad handling of 488 answer to re-invite
Description:
This is a minor bug that can be easily workaround (in my scenario), still I
thought I should report it.
Scenario :
A calls B
A sends a re-invite to *
* sends a re-invite to B
B answers 488 Not acceptable here
* ACK BYE B
In my scenario, the re-invite is for T.38 and B rejects it. The easy
workaround would be to put t38udptl=no, BUT here is what the RFC (3261)
says about re-invites :
If a UA receives a non-2xx final response to a re-INVITE, the session
parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued.
Sending a ACK-BYE hardly seems like "as if no re-invite had been issued".
Furthermore, the call between A and * is left hanging, no BYE, no answer
to the trying.
So I'm guessing we have 2 part to this bug :
1. ACK-BYE for a Re-invite instead of just passing the 488 to the other
peer (and change nothing to codecs)
2. If you hangup B, you need to hangup A
======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(0111187) lmadsen (administrator) - 2009-09-22 09:43
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=15270#c111187
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should this be linked, or is this actually a duplicate of 15922? Or rather,
just that this is a symptom of the larger issue at hand. Perhaps this issue
can be closed and just tracked on 15922?
Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
2009-09-22 09:43 lmadsen Note Added: 0111187
======================================================================
More information about the asterisk-bugs
mailing list