25 Aug
2005
25 Aug
'05
4:09 p.m.
My understanding is that this response is sent by a user agent that has
received
a cancel message and also to the sender of the original invite.
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?
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
accomplished with
ser?
Thank you for your feedback,
Regards,
---greg
On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
--
ISC Network Engineering
The University of Pennsylvania
3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A
Philadelphia, PA 19104
voice: 215-573-8396
215-746-8001
fax: 215-898-9348
sip:blairs@upenn.edu
That's right! CANCEL and 487 are hob-by-hob,
if the corresponding
INVITE was forwarded stateful.
regards
klaus
Greg Fausak wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 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