[Serusers] cancal

[Iqbal]

why, I think CANCEL will return a 200 OK, according to RFC,

Iqbal

Sebastian Kühner wrote:

>Hi!
>
>Here is a ngrep of my cancel message:
>
>U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.747447 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060
>CANCEL sip:0054261xxxxxxxx at pbx2.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0.
>Content-Length: 0.
>Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B at 192.168.1.101.
>Max-Forwards: 70.
>From: "Administrator"<sip:44441 at pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
>CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
>To: <sip:0054261xxxxxxx at pbx2.test.com:5060>.
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d00002639000
>000b4.
>User-Agent: SJLabs-SJphone/1.30.252.
>.
>
>#
>U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.997466 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024
>SIP/2.0 200 ok -- no more pending branches.
>Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B at 192.168.1.101.
>From: "Administrator"<sip:44441 at pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
>CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
>To:
><sip:0054261xxxxxxx at pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=2fb8a6135db5d855a493c61ec9633675
>-1e47.
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport=1024;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d000026
>39000000b4.
>Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.3 (i386/linux)).
>Content-Length: 0.
>Warning: 392 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 "Noisy feedback tells:  pid=31972
>req_src_ip=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx req_src_port=1024 in_uri=sip:00542
>.
>
>Shouldn't that be 486 Request Terminated instead of 200 ok?
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner at veraza.com>
>To: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
>Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
>
>
>  
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I made a ngrep and I noticed that NO "487 Request Cancelled" is reaching
>>    
>>
>my
>  
>
>>ser on CANCEL. That could be the problem.
>>
>>I also tried to use the avpops module:
>>
>>if (method == "CANCEL") {
>>    setflag(1);
>>    avp_write("cancel", "s:failover");
>>    log(1, "-CANCEL PSTN-\n");
>>};
>>
>>...and then with avp_check in the failover route. Without result. Could it
>>be that the variables in the avp don't reach another route?
>>
>>Thanks for your help
>>
>>Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william at telepacket.com>
>>To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner at veraza.com>
>>Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:39 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi Sebastian,
>>>Sorry about that, I misread the code. I will test your code and dig up
>>>an example of how I do it in my failure routes to show you.
>>>
>>>William
>>>
>>>Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi William,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your help.
>>>>
>>>>In my failover route I have the following code:
>>>>
>>>>failure_route[2] {
>>>>   if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
>>>>   {
>>>>       log (1, "next gateway...\n");
>>>>       if (!next_gw())
>>>>       {
>>>>           t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more gateways");
>>>>           break;
>>>>       }
>>>>       log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
>>>>       t_on_failure("2");
>>>>       t_relay();
>>>>   }
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>So the status is already filtered. I tried your code but without
>>>>        
>>>>
>>result...
>>    
>>
>>>>Does anybody know how I can stop the failover timer?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>Sebastian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william at telepacket.com>
>>>>To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner at veraza.com>
>>>>Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:28 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Sebastian,
>>>>>If the message is a cancel you it will have status 487
>>>>>
>>>>>so you can just add
>>>>>
>>>>>       if (t_check_status("487")) {
>>>>>               break;
>>>>>       };
>>>>>
>>>>>before the rest of the code in the failure route. You can mail me
>>>>>privately if you have any more questions about this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>William
>>>>>
>>>>>Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm using ser to forward to PSTN Gatways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Before the t_relay I put the command:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>t_on_failure("2");
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, after a timeout ser goes to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>failure_route[2] {
>>>>>>  log (1, "next gateway...\n");
>>>>>>  if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>      if (!next_gw())
>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>          t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more gateways");
>>>>>>          break;
>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>  log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>  t_on_failure("2");
>>>>>>  t_relay();
>>>>>>}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is working very good... if the user doesn't make a hangup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If caller hangs up, the CANCEL hits SER and the call is cleanly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>terminated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>SER however continues to failure_route after timeout of the initial
>>>>>>INVITE... ser sends out a new INVITE message to another
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>PSTN-Server...
>  
>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>the phone rings (with nobody in the line)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many thanks for your help!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sebastian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>.
>
>  
>