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