![]() # The proxy resends the OK from the Eyebeam again, as the SQ3000 seems User-Agent: eyeBeam release 1104a stamp 54436. # The Eyebeam sends the OK to the proxy again, as it's had no response. # The proxy forwards the OK in response to the INVITE from # Charlotte's Eyebeam sends an OK in response to the # Charlotte picks up her Eyebeam and hears nothing # The Polycom sends an OK to the SQ3000's PRACK to the # The proxy forwards the SQ3000's PRACK to the Polycom # even when the user picks up the Eyebeam # The SQ3000 will now ignore all data from the Eyebeam, # The SQ3000 sends a PRACK in response to the Polycom User-Agent: PolycomSoundPointIP-SPIP_550-UA/3. # The proxy forwards the RINGING from the Polycom to the SQ3000 # The proxy forwards the RINGING from the Eyebeam to the SQ3000 The Polycom and the Eyebeam send RINGING packets to the proxy. # Proxy sends an INVITE to on the Eyebeam # Proxy sends an INVITE to on the Polycom Here's the SIP trace: # User dials a phone number associated with SQ3000 sends an INVITE to the proxy This bug is repeatable with any combination of phones that we tried - the SQ3000 always ignores the second phone that it hears from. However, if Charlotte picks up the Eyebeam instead, the SQ3000 continues to ring and Charlotte hears silence. If Charlotte picks up the Polycom, the phone call will complete appropiately. The SQ3000 hears first from the Polycom and then the Eyebeam. The behavior of the phone is not compliant with SIP RFC 3261 or with OnSIP.Īs an example, we registered a SQ3000 to Hiro makes a phone call to who is registered on a Polycom 550 and an Eyebeam. As we never aold the plot after 2016 and we r in possession of the house now which is fully completed.Unidata phones have an issue in regards to responding appropriately to phone calls placed to a user that has more than one device (when the call is forked). ![]() A new party has come with a registry saying that its their land and the registry is dated back to 2008, pls tell is there a issue now. The case was resolved in 2018 jan and was taken back after signing affidavits approved in tehsil where the other party mentioned that he was sold fake registry and that this plot is ours. Possession of the house, completed it, got it approved from municipal corporation office under my father's name, we are paying for the electricity bills ever since and living in it for few days time to time. So we put a stay order on construction and later settled the issue by paying the construction cost to the party and toom. The registery was fake and he was cheated. Some property dealer in 2017 and started to. When we went to the site and discussed we came to knw that the person building it had bought the same from. Build house in that plot and as we stay away from the plot when we came to. We had bought a plot in punjab in 2006, done registry and everything, we did not wanted to build any thing on it yet so we kept it as it is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |