[Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameter in branch

samuel samu60 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 10:14:25 CEST 2007


Let's see if ASCII works.....


sam||||||||||||||||||||||SER||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||service1||||||||||||||||||||||||||service2
----------------------->
INVITE service
...............................|------------------------------------>
...............................|.........INVITE service1
.........................................Via:...branch=1
...............................|----------------------------------------------------------------->
...............................|........................................................INVITE
service2
.......................................................................................Via:...branch=2
<-----------------200 OK------------------------------------
.....................Via:,,,branch=1

SER has forked to service1 and service2, should't it send a CANCEL TO
service 2 open receiving 200 OK from service1?



2007/6/22, Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com>:
>
>  Maybe you can describe in a bit more detail the situation where SER is
> supposed to CANCEL the other branches, but does not?
> g-)
>
> samuel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a question about transaction matching in SER 0.9.7:
>
> In a forked request, SER receives a reply with a ;received=IP parameter
> after the branch parameter in the Via header and I don't know if this can
> affect parallel forking because it does not CANCEL the other branches....
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Samuel.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20070622/60207f08/attachment.htm>


More information about the sr-users mailing list