Your carrier is sending the Update message and not the Invite, so you should ask them. FS, supports Update and that's why it's in the Allow message. I'm not sure if and how you can remove an allow parameter and I don't think that would make a difference. Ask your carrier to send a Re-Invite if you prefer that. Also, if you are behind a proxy servers such as OpenSIPS, you can do certain message manipulation to force certain behavior. Regards, Ali Pey On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, geo cherchetout < geo.cherchetout@laposte.net> wrote:
Le 30/12/2013 19:03, *Ali Pey* wrote:
200 OK is a proper respond in this scenario as FS did receive the Update for an existing SIP session. Codec negotiation is a different story and is negotiated through SDP (Offer/Answer).
But why does FS receive such an UPDATE request unstead of an INVITE one ? Is this because the "UPDATE" string is included in the "allow:" field it sends in its own INVITE requests ? Is it possible to have FS not including this string ? And how could I have this string not included ?
If FS responds with a 4XX response code, the call would very likely be dropped which probably be a less desired outcome.
With other UACs I use, responding 488 to an INVITE request from OVH (my VoIP provider) does not drop the call. OVH sends quickly a new INVITE with compatible SDP and the call goes on. So I should prefer to receive an INVITE... and see what happens.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org