[Serusers] 487 hop to hop????
klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
Thu Aug 25 16:30:42 CEST 2005
Greg Fausak wrote:
> 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?
Imagine a forked call. If the call in canceled, ser has to wait for the
487 messages from all branches. Only after it received the 487 from all
branches, it will send a 487 to the caller.
> 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
What would be the difference if it would come end2end? The caller will
receive a 487 which will match the call-id and from tag (I think the
to-tag will be the to-tag of the last 487 received from called parties).
Thus, the caller can not distinghuish if it is generated from ser or
from a caller.
> accomplished with
> Thank you for your feedback,
> 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.
>> 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?
>>> Serusers mailing list
>>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
More information about the sr-users