Hello,
did the INVITE get to creating a transaction (e.g., was
t_relay()/t_newtran() used for it)?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 25/07/16 16:37, Ali Soltani wrote:
Hi,
We tested the following on Kamailio 3.x and 4.x and observed the same
behavior.
INVITE and CANCEL are sent to Kamailo from the same source within the
same transaction. (branch value in the first via header are the same
in both INVITE and CANCEL message. Also FROM and TO header are same as
well).
However, Kamailio does not relay CANCEL message. UAC keep sending
CANCEL till timeout. Apparently, t_check_trans() returns false.
Can anyone help me on this issue on why Kamailio does not relay CANCEL
message?
Thanks,
AS
INVITE received by Kamailio
INVITE sip:1111111@10.10.10.10:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 20.20.20.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bKkjhg4n100gagvkoup741.1
Max-Forwards: 69
From: <sip:2222222@20.20.20.20>;tag=SDl9eu701-1c1026774897
To: <sip:1111111@10.10.10.10;user=phone>
Call-ID: SDl9eu701-36d75c874d3f463f6c83c5c94cc98b77-8q7ug02
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:2222222@20.20.20.20:5060;transport=udp>
Supported: em,timer,replaces,path,resource-priority,sdp-anat
Allow:
REGISTER,OPTIONS,INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,PRACK,REFER,INFO,SUBSCRIBE,UPDATE
User-Agent: CS-CustomerName/v.6.60A.274
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 237
P-Asserted-Identity: tel:2222222
P-Asserted-Identity: sip:2222222@192.168.0.1
after 70 msec CANCEL received by Kamailio in the same transaction
CANCEL sip:1111111@10.10.10.10:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 20.20.20.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bKkjhg4n100gagvkoup741.1
CSeq: 1 CANCEL
Max-Forwards: 69
From: <sip:2222222@20.20.20.20>;tag=SDl9eu701-1c1026774897
To: <sip:1111111@10.10.10.10.;user=phone>
Call-ID: SDl9eu701-36d75c874d3f463f6c83c5c94cc98b77-8q7ug02
Content-Length: 0
Reason: Q.850 ;cause=16
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users