[SR-Users] Kamailio not increasing cseq

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

I am a bit surprised by this behaviour in freeswitch. Do you have a link 
on the discussion you had on freeswitch forums? Maybe I can understand 
better from there what is the problem.

In this case, it should be different also the branch parameter in top 
Via of the request received by freeswitch. Practically, this is SIP 
serial forking, one of the basic flows in SIP.

 From kamailio point of view as well as SIP specs, CSeq must not be 
increased in this case.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 2/28/13 6:45 PM, Camila Troncoso wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> Any further Help you can give me?
>
> Regards,
>
> Camila
>
> *From:*Camila Troncoso [mailto:ctroncoso at redvoiss.net 
> <mailto:ctroncoso at redvoiss.net>]
> *Sent:* jueves, 21 de febrero de 2013 9:52
> *To:* 'miconda at gmail.com <mailto:miconda at gmail.com>'; 'SIP Router - 
> Kamailio (OpenSER) and SIP Express Router (SER) - Users Mailing List'
> *Subject:* RE: [SR-Users] Kamailio not increasing cseq
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> In deed the Ruri is the only difference with the second invite.
>
> For the first Invite,  I received an “503 Service unavailable” from 
> the gateway , it goues trough the SBC and it is pass to the LCR so it 
> reroutes the call to the second gateway in the cloud.
>
> I asked in FreeSWITCH forum for this issue and they said that the 
> problem is Cseq not increasing, Freeswitch doesn’t take Ruri as compare.
>
> Regards,
>
> Camila
>
> *From:*sr-users-bounces at lists.sip-router.org 
> <mailto:sr-users-bounces at lists.sip-router.org> 
> [mailto:sr-users-bounces at lists.sip-router.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> *Sent:* jueves, 21 de febrero de 2013 5:08
> *To:* SIP Router - Kamailio (OpenSER) and SIP Express Router (SER) - 
> Users Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio not increasing cseq
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2/20/13 7:44 PM, Camila Troncoso wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I’m working for a while with Kamailio+Freeswitch as SBC.
>
>     I have this structure:
>
>     **
>
>     When I make a call from one client connected to LCR,  it is route
>     to my SBC and afterwards to his destiny in the cloud passing
>     though a gateway. When the destiny is unreachable, the LCR
>     reroutes the call to another gateway. Sometimes the LCR send this
>     retry again to the SBC , because the second gateway is also in the
>     cloud, but when this happens, FreeSWITCH answer with :
>
>     “482 Request merged” because it detects that is the same call.
>
>     This is because the second INVITE has the same Call-ID and same
>     Cseq. Kamailio *is not* increasing CSeq.
>
>     Is there a way to resolve this?
>
> it is a second branch, the top via header of the second invite should 
> have a different branch parameter than the previous one. Freeswitch 
> should detect that and handle it as a separate branch of the call, 
> too. Try changing the r-uri a bit and see if works (e.g., set a prefix 
> that you remove it if set), as an workaround.
>
> Also, is the CANCEL sent to Freeswitch for first branch? Or is 
> Freeswitch sending a negative reply?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> -- 
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -http://www.asipto.com
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda  <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>  -http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio World Conference, April 16-17, 2013, Berlin
>   -http://conference.kamailio.com  -

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, April 16-17, 2013, Berlin
  - http://conference.kamailio.com -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20130301/8b732bf7/attachment-0001.htm>