main route block..ac
# main routing logic
route{
if (method == "CANCEL"){
t_relay();
}
...
--- Steve Blair <blairs(a)isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
humm. Where did you put it?
a c wrote:
thanks guys..t_relay was the problem. I did not
have
this in the config. issue is resolved.
ac
--- a c <lra101(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe the 487 does not get matched because the
> UA
> which does the CANCEL never gets a 200 OK back since
> the CANCEL was not send out to the terminating UA by
> SER. For CANCEL, are we supposed to have special
> config? I don't have any specifically handles CANCEL
> {other than 487}.
>
> ac
>
>
> --- Steve Blair <blairs(a)isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I am having a similar problem. I am not yet
>> convinced that it is SER
>> as much as my configuration but if SER does have
>> difficulty processing
>> CANCEL messages it would be helpful to understand
>> under what
>> circumstances.
>>
>> By the way I have been using t_check_status in
>>
>>
> a
>
>
>> similar way since
>> v 0.8 code. When I upgraded to 0.9.0, .0 and now
>>
>>
> .2
>
>
>> the t_check_status
>> fails to be matched.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
>>
>> a c wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> any ideas anyone? seems like SER does not respond
>>>
>>>
>> to
>>
>>
>>> CANCEL requests and eventually takes the failure
>>> route.
>>>
>>> I have the following in my failure route, but it
>>>
>>>
>> never
>>
>>
>>> gets hit, since SER does not send the 200 OK back
>>>
>>>
>> or
>>
>>
>>> pass the CANCEL message forward. log file
>>>
>>>
> attached.
>
>
>>> failure_route[1]
>>> {
>>> if(t_check_status("487")) {
>>> # don't continue on cancellation
>>> xlog("L_WARN", "OH OH OH\n");
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>>> ac
>>>
>>>
>>> --- a c <lra101(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seems like SER does not respond back to CANCEL
>>>> Requests. Is this a issue / some config problem
>>>>
>>>>
> on
>
>
>>>> my
>>>> side? ngrep traces attached
>>>>
>>>> interface: eth0 (192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0)
>>>> filter: ip and ( port 5060 )
>>>> #
>>>> U 192.168.0.2:5062 -> 192.168.0.5:5060
>>>> INVITE sip:9999999999@voip.com SIP/2.0..Via:
>>>> SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.2:5062;r
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
port;branch=z9hG4bKE29503D9D8CF4A479B6D9DDB17C5CFC1..From:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 102 <sip:102@voi
>>>> p.com:5062>;tag=3282942385..To:
>>>> <sip:9999999999@voip.com>..Contact: <sip:10
>>>> 2@192.168.0.2:5062>..Call-ID:
>>>> 29469D19-CDF1-49ED-8245-A67E1B1DBB88(a)192.168.
>>>> 0.2..CSeq: 940 INVITE..Max-Forwards:
>>>> 70..Content-Type: application/sdp..Use
>>>> r-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m..Content-Length:
>>>> 258....v=0..o=102 7659613 76
>>>> 59633 IN IP4 192.168.0.2..s=X-Lite..c=IN IP4
>>>> 192.168.0.2..t=0 0..m=audio 80
>>>> 00 RTP/AVP 0 8 3 98 96..a=rtpmap:0
>>>> pcmu/8000..a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000..a=rtpma
>>>> p:3 gsm/8000..a=rtpmap:98
>>>>
>>>>
> iLBC/8000..a=rtpmap:96
>
>
>>>> telephone-event/8000..a=fm
>>>> tp:96 0-15..
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> #
>>>> U 192.168.0.5:5060 -> 192.168.0.2:5062
>>>> SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important
>>>>
>>>>
> to
>
>
>>>> us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.16
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
8.0.2:5062;rport=5062;branch=z9hG4bKE29503D9D8CF4A479B6D9DDB17C5CFC1..From:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 102
>>>>
>>>>
> <sip:102@voip.com:5062>;tag=3282942385..To:
>
>
>>>> <sip:9999999999@voip.com>.
>>>> .Call-ID:
>>>>
>>>>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org