[Serusers] 487 hop to hop????

[Steve Blair]

My understanding is that this response is sent by a user agent that has 
received
a cancel message and also to the sender of the original invite.

Greg Fausak wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> I've been scouring the RFCs looking for this verbiage.
> One of our developers here is telling me that is a mistake, that the
> 487 needs to come from the far end.  Do you know where I might
> find more information about this topic?
>
> It seems to me that the ser proxy is responding to the cancel with
> a 487.  If I had to make it come from the far end can that be  
> accomplished with
> ser?
>
> Thank you for your feedback,
>
> Regards,
> ---greg
>
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>
>> That's right! CANCEL and 487 are hob-by-hob, if the corresponding  
>> INVITE was forwarded stateful.
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>> Greg Fausak wrote:
>>
>>> I've got a call trace that shows an INVITE being CANCELed, the
>>> CANCEL is hop to hop.  I had thought the 487 was generated
>>> at the other end and came all the way back, but my call
>>> traces indicate that the 487 is being generated hop to hop as well.
>>> That's not right, is it?
>>> ---greg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


-- 
  
ISC Network Engineering
The University of Pennsylvania
3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A
Philadelphia, PA 19104  


voice: 215-573-8396 

       215-746-8001

fax: 215-898-9348    

sip:blairs at upenn.edu