Re: [SR-Users] Upstream ignores reply, because To-tag doesn't match?

9 Apr 2019

      That's really strange, the CANCEL has the same direction as INVITE, not
the opposite. Can you double check if they really asked for such things.
This is very clear in terms of SIP specs and I doubt that someone
understood it wrong.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 09.04.19 14:08, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
...
Yes Daniel, that is precisely so.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019, 7:10 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla,
<miconda@gmail.com mailto:miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
To be sure I understand properly: do they require to send a CANCEL
back to them for calls that they initiate with the first INVITE
and do not get 200ok, but 3xx/4xx/5xx?

Cheers,
Daniel

On 08.04.19 17:34, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:

...
Looks like it's going to be another battle with a
Metaswitch-based carrier... so far they are telling me 'we can't
do anything about it. Send us a CANCEL to tear down the call`

I know this is a `another story` question, but if I had to
overcome this, would *uac_req_send() *be my only option?

Thanks again,
--Sergiu

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:15 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda@gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 07.04.19 15:40, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:

...
    To simplify, the problem seems to come down to the
    following: how do you cancel/end an early state dialog
    between the caller and callee after `fr_inv_timeout` occurs?
    Kam self-generates a proper CANCEL towards the callee, while
    the caller gets a `408 Request Timeout' with a different To-tag.

    That's all required not to have a dialog completed, but
    faild. There is no need to send a BYE or another CANCEL. The
    INVITE got the 408, not 200.

    Cheers,
    Daniel

...
    I've tried:
    dlg_bye("all") - throws an error, non-confirmed dialogs
    can't be terminated with this function
    t_cancel_callid("$dlg(callid)", "$dlg(from_cseq)", "22",
    "200") - doesn't seem to produce any action

    Suggestions?

    On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 11:25 AM Sergiu Pojoga
    <pojogas@gmail.com <mailto:pojogas@gmail.com>> wrote:

        Hi ppl,

        Scenario: invite from upstream is t_relayed to a client
        gateway. After `fr_inv_timeout` occurs, in a failure
        route I simply t_reply with "503 - Service unavailable",
        then exit(). 

        However, the upstream provider simply ignores this
        reply, call doesn't hang up. This doesn't happen when
        the client's gateway generates identical 503 or other
        negative replies.

        I suspect this is happening because the To-tag in the
        Kam generated 503 reply doesn't match with the To-tag
        that previously was forwarded from the client's gateway
        to the upstream provider in the `180 Ringing`.

        Any suggestions what can be done about it?

        2019/04/06 10:42:46.127177 65.39.xxx.xxx:5060 ->
        208.72.xxx.xxx:5060                                     

        SIP/2.0 180 Ringing                                     

        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
        208.72.xxx.xxx:5060;received=208.72.xxx.xxx;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1982422573 

        Record-Route: <sip:65.39.xxx.xxx;lr=on;did=915.8af1>   

        From: "SERGIU"
        <sip:514XXXXXXX@208.72.xxx.xxx>;isup-oli=00;tag=1975755942 

        To: <sip:514XXXXXXX@65.39.xxx.xxx>;tag=as2ab54180       

        Call-ID: DID-28270826@208.72.xxx.xx
        <mailto:DID-28270826@208.72.xxx.xx>                     

        CSeq: 477023 INVITE                                     

        Supported: replaces, timer, path                       

        Contact: <sip:1514XXXXXXX@65.39.xxx.xxx:5060>           

        Content-Length: 0                                       

        2019/04/06 10:42:51.072516 65.39.xxx.xxx:5060 ->
        208.72.xxx.xxx:5060                                     

        SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable                         

        Call-ID: DID-28270826@208.72.xxx.xx
        <mailto:DID-28270826@208.72.xxx.xx>                     

        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
        208.72.xxx.xxx:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1982422573;received=208.72.xxx.xxx 

        From: "SERGIU"
        <sip:514XXXXXXX@208.72.xxx.xxx>;isup-oli=00;tag=1975755942 

        To:
        <sip:514XXXXXXX@65.39.xxx.xxx>;tag=a6a1c5f60faecf035a1ae5b6e96e979a-8e82 

        CSeq: 477023 INVITE                                     

        Server: KAM                                             

        Content-Length: 0 

        Thanks,
        --Sergiu

    _______________________________________________
    Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
    sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
    https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

    -- 
    Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
    www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
    Kamailio World Conference - May 6-8, 2019 -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>

_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
Kamailio World Conference - May 6-8, 2019 -- www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>

Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference - May 6-8, 2019 -- www.kamailioworld.com

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Re: [SR-Users] Upstream ignores reply, because To-tag doesn't match?