[Serusers] tm matching forked replies with received parameterin branch

[Greger Viken Teigre]

Interesting. And you are saying that you believe the received param is the cause?! I have never seen that. The call branch is never cancelled?

Do you have the ser debug trace? 
g-)
------- Original message -------
From: samuel <samu60 at gmail.com>
Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
Sent: 22.6.'07,  10:14

> 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.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>   
> 
>