[Serusers] Proxy Behaviour on a parallel fork

[Mark Aiken]

A sort of related question: If the INVITE is always record-routed with
lr=on, is it a guarantee that all in-dialog requests (BYE,ACK,reINVITE,INFO,
etx) will be loose routed?

Mark

On 9/29/05, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote:
>
>
>
> jim.pafford at comcast.net wrote:
> > In ser 0.9.3 I am seeing the following problem with a parallel forking
> > scenario. The SER is sending the final Request ACK to the wrong location
> > every time. Is there a way to fix this. See below:
> >
> > Endpoint (xyz at 1.1.1.1 <mailto:xyz at 1.1.1.1>) sends
> > Invite(abc123 at proxy.com <mailto:abc123 at proxy.com>) to the SER.
> > SER looks up location and then sends the following three messages:
> > TRYING back to (xyz at 1.1.1.1 <mailto:xyz at 1.1.1.1>)
> > INVITE to abc123 at 2.2.2.2 <mailto:abc123 at 2.2.2.2>
> > INVITE to abc123 at 3.3.3.3 <mailto:abc123 at 3.3.3.3>
> >
> > This looks good so far.
> > SER then gets back ringing from both endpoints and sends along to
> > xyz at 1.1.1.1 <mailto:xyz at 1.1.1.1>
> >
> > abc123 at 3.3.3.3 <mailto:abc123 at 3.3.3.3> answers the call and sends back
> OK
> > SER then sends OK to xyz at 1.1.1.1 <mailto:xyz at 1.1.1.1> - Still good
> > SER then sends CANCEL to abc123 at 2.2.2.2 <mailto:abc123 at 2.2.2.2>
> > abc123 at 2.2.2.2 <mailto:abc123 at 2.2.2.2> responds with 200 Canceling - so
> > far so good.
> >
> > Now xyz at 1.1.1.1 <mailto:xyz at 1.1.1.1> sends the ACK to (abc123 at proxy.com
> > <mailto:abc123 at proxy.com>) - Still looks good.
> >
> > But now after looking up location for abc123 SER sends the ACK to the
>
> Do you use lookup(location) for ACK? This is not necessary. It should be
> handled in loose_route section.
>
> klaus
>
>
> > wrong endpoint abc123 at 2.2.2.2 <mailto:abc123 at 2.2.2.2>
> >
> > What am I doing wrong? SER always sends the ACK back to the first
> > address in the list as shown by serctl ul show abc123. Is there a way
> > to correct this so that SER knows the correct endpoint to relay the ACK
> > to? Seems like it should understand which endpoint sent back the OK to
> > the original INVITE and then send the ACK to that endpoint and not the
> > first one in the list after a location lookup.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050929/361803e8/attachment.htm>