[Serusers] dealing with parallel forking ...

[Cesc Santa]

On 8/3/07, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de> wrote:
> Cesc Santa wrote:
> > On 8/3/07, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de> wrote:
> >> samuel wrote:
> >>> inline...
> >>>
> >>> 2007/8/3, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de
> >>> <mailto: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??
> >> Correct: if you used append_branch (IIRC you did) the call leg will
> >> be canceled by SER. But as there is a race condition due to network
> >> latency, a 200 OK might have been sent by the receiving UA before
> >> the CANCEL was received.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Olaf,
> >
> > It seems that, for some reason, my SER is not cancelling the branches
> > after reception
> > of the first 200 OK ... any idea? where would the code be?
> > For testing, one of the endpoints is asterisk's echo ...
> > The other callee is a phone, and apart from sending 100 and 183, I
> > wait some seconds before I decide to pick up ... enough for SER to
> > send a CANCEL, which never happends.
> >
> > The second 200 OK is not matched to any transaction, so it would seem
> > like SER has already deleted it ... when does that happen? I've done
> > some stuff with SER ... but the TM module is really hardcore :)
>
> So, which version of SER are you using? IIRC---for some reason, I
> did not recently check with the TM code---the outstanding branches
> are cancelled automatically after receiving a 200 OK in recent
> versions of the TM module. Not sure here---it simply works for us.
>
> Regards,
> Olaf
>

I'm using 0.9.6 ...
It is good that it works in yours (which r u using?) ... i can try to
track the problem in the cvs ...

Cesc