[Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameter in branch - sr-users - kamailio.org

List overview All Threads
Download

[Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameter in branch

[Serusers] sip and rtp forwarding...

Re: [Serusers] Quick resend of...

samuel

21 Jun 2007 21 Jun '07

3:02 p.m.

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.

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 342 bytes)

Reply

Show replies by date

Greger V. Teigre

22 Jun 22 Jun

10:41 a.m.

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

Reply

samuel

11:14 a.m.

New subject: [Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameter in branch

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@lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Reply

samuel

11:15 a.m.

New subject: [Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameter in branch

typo......:s/open/upon 2007/6/22, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com>om>:

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?

SER has forked to service1 and service2, should't it send a CANCEL TO service 2 *upon* 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@lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Reply

Greger Viken Teigre

1:44 p.m.

New subject: [Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameterin branch

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

Reply

6368

days inactive

6369

days old

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Manage subscription

4 comments

3 participants

tags (0)

participants (3)

Greger V. Teigre
Greger Viken Teigre
samuel