[Serusers] dealing with parallel forking ...

[Cesc Santa]

Got it!!! Took me a bit of fighting, but found it ...

A couple of small bugs in 0.9.6 (tm/t_cancel.c/h, functions
should_cancel_branch and cancel_branch)... which prevent CANCELs from
being sent ... I will be sending a patch to the devel list ...

Cesc


On 8/3/07, Cesc Santa <cesc.santa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>