Hi Jiri,
I probably didn't make myself clear. In this case, it is not really a race
condition.
It happens when one user picks up a branch. Ser sends out CANCEL to all
other branches. The issue is that ser propagates the 487 to the upstream
caller. It should absorb the 487 because it is a ser generated branch. And
the 487 to the caller can disrupt the call depending on the UA
implementation.
Thanks,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 5:55 PM
To: Richard; 'ser users'
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancel and 487 relay
At 11:33 PM 10/17/2004, Richard wrote:
Hi,
I ran into some issues. Hope that someone can enlighten me. When ser does
a
parallel forking, it uses its uac to initiate a
new call. The scenario is
Phone A calls phone B via ser. In ser, it forks into two branches, one
for
phone B and one for phone C. To call phone C,
ser's uac initiates the
call.
When Phone B picks up the call, ser sends a CANCEL
to phone C and cancesl
the call. The following diagram illustrates the sip call flow. For
simplicity, I didn't include any message involving Phone B.
Packet # Phone A ------- (ser UAC) -------- ser --------- Phone C
0 | INVITE ----------------> | |
1 | | INVITE -> | |
2 | <----------- 100 trying | |
3 | | | INVITE -> |
4 | | | <- 100 trying |
5 | | | <- 183 |
6 | <-------------- 183 | |
7 | | CANCEL -> | |
8 | |<- 200canceling| |
9 | | | CANCEL -> |
10 | | | <- 487 |
11 | | | <- 200 OK |
12 | | | ACK -> |
13 | | <- 487 | |
14 | | ACK -> | |
15 | | | ACK -> |
16 | <--------------- 487 | |
17 | ACK ---------------> | |
18 | | | ACK -> |
Per rfc, 487 and its ACK are hop-by-hop, i.e. ACK is generated at each
hop.
Ser correctly does it at Packet 12. The problem
happens after packet 14.
Somehow ser doesn't think this ACK of Packet 14 is an acknowledgement of
Packet 13.
that's strange. I don't know why it is this way without seeing the
packets. (I have to admit that even if I received them, my current
worload would not allow me to study them.)
So it is forwarded to Phone C. Not sure if I can
use ser.cfg to
absorb it without forwarding. Anyway, not a big deal for an extra ACK.
The
big problem is that somehow ser relays the 487
back to Phone A. It
doesn't
seem right. In Packet 10, 487 is to cancel the
original INVITE at Packet
3
which has a record-route of Phone A, ser. So 487
has the same "Via" field
back to Phone A. When this 487 is relayed back to Phone A, it already
gets
the 200 OK from Phone B and has an active
conversation.
well that's a race condition -- if caller cancelled, then the 487 should
propagate to UAC. If at the same time one of the called parties answered,
the UAC will see the 200 too. The case that caller hangs up at the same
point of time when called party happens simply happens.
Depending on the
implementation, Phone A may choose to close the call because of the 487.
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/