29 Sep
2005
29 Sep
'05
6:33 p.m.
Thank you very much. You are absolutely correct. Removed the lookup and relied on
loose-route and problem is solved.
Jim
-------------- Original message --------------
jim.pafford(a)comcast.net wrote:
In ser 0.9.3 I am seeing the following problem
with a parallel forking
scenario. The SER is sending the final Request ACK to the wrong location
every time. Is there a way to fix this. See below:
Endpoint (xyz(a)1.1.1.1 ) sends
Invite(abc123(a)proxy.com ) to the SER.
SER looks up location and then sends the following three messages:
TRYING back to (xyz(a)1.1.1.1 )
INVITE to abc123(a)2.2.2.2
INVITE to abc123(a)3.3.3.3
This looks good so far.
SER then gets back ringing from both endpoints and sends along to
xyz(a)1.1.1.1
abc123(a)3.3.3.3 answers the call and sends back OK
SER then sends OK to xyz(a)1.1.1.1 - Still good
SER then sends CANCEL to abc123(a)2.2.2.2
abc123(a)2.2.2.2 responds with 200 Canceling - so
far so good.
Now xyz(a)1.1.1.1 sends the ACK to (abc123(a)proxy.com
) - Still looks good.
But now after looking up location for abc123 SER sends the ACK to the
Do you use lookup(location) for ACK? This is not necessary. It should be
handled in loose_route section.
klaus
> wrong endpoint abc123(a)2.2.2.2
>
> What am I doing wrong? SER always sends the ACK back to the first
> address in the list as shown by serctl ul show abc123. Is there a way
> to correct this so that SER knows the correct endpoint to relay the ACK
> to? Seems like it should understand which endpoint sent back the OK to
> the original INVITE and then send the ACK to that endpoint and not the
> first one in the list after a location lookup.
>
> thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers