I doubt it has anything to do with 180vs183. Check for nat issues in the trace that isn't working.
On Feb 10, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Ben Hood <0x6e6562@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm wondering what influences Freeswitch's signalling response when it responds to an INVITE.
In some instances it appears to follow this sequence:
Peer -> INVITE (SDP) -> FS Peer <- 100 <- FS Peer <- 183 (SDP) <- FS Peer <- 200 (SDP) <- FS Peer -> ACK -> FS
Which leads to a successful bridge between two legs.
But in other instances it appears to follow the sequence:
Peer -> INVITE (SDP) -> FS Peer <- 100 <- FS Peer <- 180 (SDP) <- FS Peer <- 200 (SDP) <- FS (1st attempt) Peer <- 200 (SDP) <- FS (2nd attempt) .... Peer <- 200 (SDP) <- FS (nth attempt) ....timeout
I'm not 100% sure whether the remote peer (itself a SIP trunk) doesn't like the 100/180/200 sequence (as opposed to 100/183/200), so I need to find that out for myself.
But I am wondering what factors influence Freeswitch's decision of what sequence signals to send in response to an INVITE.
Any pointers appreciated,
Ben