[Serusers] dealing with parallel forking ...

[samuel]

inline...

2007/8/3, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de>:
>
> Cesc Santa wrote:
>
>
> > I am doing some tests and it is not really a problem ... but maybe
> > someone has a better idea. In my configuration, the first 200 OK
> > received is forwarded to the caller and the whole SIP session setup
> > (caller + 1st callee).
> > Next 200 OKs are also delivered to the caller,
>
> That is the correct behavior of a SIP proxy.


I think the proper forking behaviour is to send a CANCEL to all branches
upon receiving a 200 from one of them and I think that SER does this
automatically... isn't it??


> who happily ignores them ...
>
> That is broken behavior of a SIP UA.


I think it's not specified what to do when a UA receives a second  200
OK.... it can safely ignore it, it can present a mesage to the user, it can
try to mix the different audio streams, it can create a second dialog and
put the first on hold, and more options.

Try to look at HERP and "early media and forking" topics....


> it is the task of the 2nd (and 3rd, ... ) callee to at a
> > certain point give up and send a BYE, to which the caller replies with
> > 481 no call leg ...
> > It all works ... but, I wonder if ser could send CANCELs after
> > receiving the 1st 200 OK ... if yes, how? :)
>
> No, you cannot CANCEL an INVITE after having received a final
> response. This must be done by the caller after having sent the ACK.
> The UAC you have used is broken. The callee's UA tries to deal with
> it and does the best it can. You should use a standards-compliant
> SIP UA for your tests.


Hope I'm right though I think it should work "as it is"  ;)

sam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20070803/808ec6c1/attachment.htm>