[Serusers] Re: SER CANCEL Processing

[Greger V. Teigre]

Hi Steve,
You just have to register ;-)
g-)

Steve Blair wrote:
> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>
>> A part of the ONsip.org Getting Started effort is to make
>> configuration files that can be used as a reference (and thus should
>> be validated for correctness through theory and scrutiny from
>> community).  CANCELs can be in dialog and outside dialog and must
>> thus be handled in two ways.  In dialog they should be handled
>> through the loose route (and basically t_relay'ed), while outside
>> dialog they should be handled as INVITEs (credits go to Jan for
>> explaining this in detail).
>> Ex. this configuration file will show you this:
>> http://www.onsip.org/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=7
>>
> While this link is not accessible I appreciate the explanation.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> g-)
>>
>> a c wrote:
>>
>>> main route block..ac
>>>
>>> # main routing logic
>>> route{
>>>
>>>
>>>        if (method == "CANCEL"){
>>>           t_relay();
>>>        }
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Steve Blair <blairs at isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> humm. Where did you put it?
>>>>
>>>> a c wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> thanks guys..t_relay was the problem. I did not have
>>>>> this in the config. issue is resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> ac
>>>>> --- a c <lra101 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the 487 does not get matched because the
>>>>>> UA
>>>>>> which does the CANCEL never gets a 200 OK back since
>>>>>> the CANCEL was not send out to the terminating UA by
>>>>>> SER. For CANCEL, are we supposed to have special
>>>>>> config? I don't have any specifically handles CANCEL
>>>>>> {other than 487}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ac
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Steve Blair <blairs at isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I am having a similar problem. I am not yet
>>>>>>> convinced that it is SER
>>>>>>> as much as my configuration but if SER does have
>>>>>>> difficulty processing
>>>>>>> CANCEL messages it would be helpful to understand
>>>>>>> under what
>>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   By the way I have been using t_check_status in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> similar way since
>>>>>>> v 0.8 code. When I upgraded to 0.9.0, .0 and now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> .2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the t_check_status
>>>>>>> fails to be matched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a c wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any ideas anyone? seems like SER does not respond
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CANCEL requests and eventually takes the failure
>>>>>>>> route.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have the following in my failure route, but it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> gets hit, since SER does not send the 200 OK back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pass the CANCEL message forward. log file
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> attached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> failure_route[1]
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>   if(t_check_status("487")) {
>>>>>>>>    # don't continue on cancellation
>>>>>>>>    xlog("L_WARN", "OH OH OH\n");
>>>>>>>>    break;
>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- a c <lra101 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems like SER does not respond back to CANCEL
>>>>>>>>> Requests. Is this a issue / some config problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> side?  ngrep traces attached
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interface: eth0 (192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0)
>>>>>>>>> filter: ip and ( port 5060 )
>>>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>>> U 192.168.0.2:5062 -> 192.168.0.5:5060
>>>>>>>>> INVITE sip:9999999999 at voip.com SIP/2.0..Via:
>>>>>>>>> SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.2:5062;r
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> port;branch=z9hG4bKE29503D9D8CF4A479B6D9DDB17C5CFC1..From:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 102 <sip:102 at voi
>>>>>>>>> p.com:5062>;tag=3282942385..To:
>>>>>>>>> <sip:9999999999 at voip.com>..Contact: <sip:10
>>>>>>>>> 2 at 192.168.0.2:5062>..Call-ID:
>>>>>>>>> 29469D19-CDF1-49ED-8245-A67E1B1DBB88 at 192.168.
>>>>>>>>> 0.2..CSeq: 940 INVITE..Max-Forwards:
>>>>>>>>> 70..Content-Type: application/sdp..Use
>>>>>>>>> r-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m..Content-Length:
>>>>>>>>> 258....v=0..o=102 7659613 76
>>>>>>>>> 59633 IN IP4 192.168.0.2..s=X-Lite..c=IN IP4
>>>>>>>>> 192.168.0.2..t=0 0..m=audio 80
>>>>>>>>> 00 RTP/AVP 0 8 3 98 96..a=rtpmap:0
>>>>>>>>> pcmu/8000..a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000..a=rtpma
>>>>>>>>> p:3 gsm/8000..a=rtpmap:98
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> iLBC/8000..a=rtpmap:96
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> telephone-event/8000..a=fm
>>>>>>>>> tp:96 0-15..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>>> U 192.168.0.5:5060 -> 192.168.0.2:5062
>>>>>>>>> SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.16
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 8.0.2:5062;rport=5062;branch=z9hG4bKE29503D9D8CF4A479B6D9DDB17C5CFC1..From:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  102
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <sip:102 at voip.com:5062>;tag=3282942385..To:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <sip:9999999999 at voip.com>.
>>>>>>>>> .Call-ID:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> === message truncated ===
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
>>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Serusers mailing list
>>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers