Re: [Serdev] Re: Handling of early CANCELs - was Re: [Serusers] SER Nokia CANCEL Problem

Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:

On Feb 26, 2007 at 17:45, Martin Hoffmann hn@nvnc.de wrote:

...

Which makes it all the more apparent that t_relay() should never relay a CANCEL. Ever. It should return with an error and I then can decide whether I have a stateless proxy or not to statelessly forward the CANCEL or just error it away.

I think it should relay the CANCEL and if an INVITE comes and the CANCEL transaction is still alive, it should reply w/ 487 (Ottendorf does this).

But isn't there a potential for DOS? Since CANCELs can only be accepted (no auth*), sending CANCELs to nowhere (from anonymous.invalid :) ) seems the easiest solution to eat fast the shm.

Bogdan.

Andrei