In ser 0.9.3 I am seeing the following problem with a parallel forking scenario. The SER is sending the final Request ACK to the wrong location every time. Is there a way to fix this. See below:
Endpoint (xyz@1.1.1.1) sends Invite(abc123@proxy.com) to the SER. SER looks up location and then sends the following three messages: TRYING back to (xyz@1.1.1.1) INVITE to abc123@2.2.2.2 INVITE to abc123@3.3.3.3
This looks good so far. SER then gets back ringing from both endpoints and sends along to xyz@1.1.1.1
abc123@3.3.3.3 answers the call and sends back OK SER then sends OK to xyz@1.1.1.1 - Still good SER then sends CANCEL to abc123@2.2.2.2 abc123@2.2.2.2 responds with 200 Canceling - so far so good.
Now xyz@1.1.1.1 sends the ACK to (abc123@proxy.com) - Still looks good.
But now after looking up location for abc123 SER sends the ACK to the wrong endpoint abc123@2.2.2.2
What am I doing wrong? SER always sends the ACK back to the first address in the list as shown by serctl ul show abc123. Is there a way to correct this so that SER knows the correct endpoint to relay the ACK to? Seems like it should understand which endpoint sent back the OK to the original INVITE and then send the ACK to that endpoint and not the first one in the list after a location lookup.
thanks, Jim
jim.pafford@comcast.net wrote:
In ser 0.9.3 I am seeing the following problem with a parallel forking scenario. The SER is sending the final Request ACK to the wrong location every time. Is there a way to fix this. See below:
Endpoint (xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1) sends Invite(abc123@proxy.com mailto:abc123@proxy.com) to the SER. SER looks up location and then sends the following three messages: TRYING back to (xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1) INVITE to abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 INVITE to abc123@3.3.3.3 mailto:abc123@3.3.3.3
This looks good so far. SER then gets back ringing from both endpoints and sends along to xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1
abc123@3.3.3.3 mailto:abc123@3.3.3.3 answers the call and sends back OK SER then sends OK to xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1 - Still good SER then sends CANCEL to abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 responds with 200 Canceling - so far so good.
Now xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1 sends the ACK to (abc123@proxy.com mailto:abc123@proxy.com) - Still looks good.
But now after looking up location for abc123 SER sends the ACK to the
Do you use lookup(location) for ACK? This is not necessary. It should be handled in loose_route section.
klaus
wrong endpoint abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2
What am I doing wrong? SER always sends the ACK back to the first address in the list as shown by serctl ul show abc123. Is there a way to correct this so that SER knows the correct endpoint to relay the ACK to? Seems like it should understand which endpoint sent back the OK to the original INVITE and then send the ACK to that endpoint and not the first one in the list after a location lookup.
thanks, Jim
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
A sort of related question: If the INVITE is always record-routed with lr=on, is it a guarantee that all in-dialog requests (BYE,ACK,reINVITE,INFO, etx) will be loose routed?
Mark
On 9/29/05, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
jim.pafford@comcast.net wrote:
In ser 0.9.3 I am seeing the following problem with a parallel forking scenario. The SER is sending the final Request ACK to the wrong location every time. Is there a way to fix this. See below:
Endpoint (xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1) sends Invite(abc123@proxy.com mailto:abc123@proxy.com) to the SER. SER looks up location and then sends the following three messages: TRYING back to (xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1) INVITE to abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 INVITE to abc123@3.3.3.3 mailto:abc123@3.3.3.3
This looks good so far. SER then gets back ringing from both endpoints and sends along to xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1
abc123@3.3.3.3 mailto:abc123@3.3.3.3 answers the call and sends back
OK
SER then sends OK to xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1 - Still good SER then sends CANCEL to abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2 responds with 200 Canceling - so far so good.
Now xyz@1.1.1.1 mailto:xyz@1.1.1.1 sends the ACK to (abc123@proxy.com mailto:abc123@proxy.com) - Still looks good.
But now after looking up location for abc123 SER sends the ACK to the
Do you use lookup(location) for ACK? This is not necessary. It should be handled in loose_route section.
klaus
wrong endpoint abc123@2.2.2.2 mailto:abc123@2.2.2.2
What am I doing wrong? SER always sends the ACK back to the first address in the list as shown by serctl ul show abc123. Is there a way to correct this so that SER knows the correct endpoint to relay the ACK to? Seems like it should understand which endpoint sent back the OK to the original INVITE and then send the ACK to that endpoint and not the first one in the list after a location lookup.
thanks, Jim
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
jim.pafford＠comcast.net -
Juha Heinanen -
Klaus Darilion -
Mark Aiken