Interesting. And you are saying that you believe the received param is the cause?! I have never seen that. The call branch is never cancelled?
Do you have the ser debug trace? g-) ------- Original message ------- From: samuel samu60@gmail.com Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: 22.6.'07, 10:14
Let's see if ASCII works.....
sam||||||||||||||||||||||SER||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||service1||||||||||||||||||||||||||service2 -----------------------> INVITE service ...............................|------------------------------------> ...............................|.........INVITE service1 .........................................Via:...branch=1 ...............................|-----------------------------------------------------------------> ...............................|........................................................INVITE service2 .......................................................................................Via:...branch=2 <-----------------200 OK------------------------------------ .....................Via:,,,branch=1
SER has forked to service1 and service2, should't it send a CANCEL TO service 2 open receiving 200 OK from service1?
2007/6/22, Greger V. Teigre greger@teigre.com: Maybe you can describe in a bit more detail the situation where SER is supposed to CANCEL the other branches, but does not? g-)
samuel wrote: Hi all,
Just a question about transaction matching in SER 0.9.7:
In a forked request, SER receives a reply with a ;received=IP parameter after the branch parameter in the Via header and I don't know if this can affect
parallel forking because it does not CANCEL the other branches....
Thanks, Samuel.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers