22 Jun
2007
22 Jun
'07
1:44 p.m.
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(a)gmail.com>
Cc: serusers(a)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(a)teigre.com>om>:
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(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers