25 Aug
2005
25 Aug
'05
5:30 p.m.
Hi Greg!
Greg Fausak wrote:
Howdy,
I've been scouring the RFCs looking for this verbiage.
One of our developers here is telling me that is a mistake, that the
487 needs to come from the far end. Do you know where I might
find more information about this topic?
Imagine a forked call. If the call in canceled, ser has to wait for the
487 messages from all branches. Only after it received the 487 from all
branches, it will send a 487 to the caller.
It seems to me that the ser proxy is responding to the
cancel with
a 487. If I had to make it come from the far end can that be
What would be the difference if it would come end2end? The caller will
receive a 487 which will match the call-id and from tag (I think the
to-tag will be the to-tag of the last 487 received from called parties).
Thus, the caller can not distinghuish if it is generated from ser or
from a caller.
regards
klaus
accomplished with
ser?
Thank you for your feedback,
Regards,
---greg
On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
That's right! CANCEL and 487 are hob-by-hob,
if the corresponding
INVITE was forwarded stateful.
regards
klaus
Greg Fausak wrote:
I've got a call trace that shows an INVITE
being CANCELed, the
CANCEL is hop to hop. I had thought the 487 was generated
at the other end and came all the way back, but my call
traces indicate that the 487 is being generated hop to hop as well.
That's not right, is it?
---greg
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers