Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Jiri Kuthan
On 5/3/13 2:59 PM, Vassilis Radis wrote: Yes, I used the term proxy to include statefullness and dialog awareness, which makes me think: What is the point of being transaction-aware without being dialog-aware? I am trying to find a use for it, but I cant. Things are simpler: restartig transact

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Klaus Darilion
On 03.05.2013 11:59, Vassilis Radis wrote: Thank you jiri, I totally agree, but I have a question that occured to me now and I cant find answer: If Kamailio receives a CANCEL from a UAC after kamailio has responded with a 200 to the corresponding INVITE, what does t_relay_cancel() do in the f

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Alex Balashov
On 05/03/2013 08:59 AM, Vassilis Radis wrote: What is the point of being transaction-aware without being dialog-aware? I am trying to find a use for it, but I cant. Lots of uses! Retransmission dampening, serial forking (branches), and many more. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov - Principal Eva

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Vassilis Radis
Yes, I used the term proxy to include statefullness and dialog awareness, which makes me think: What is the point of being transaction-aware without being dialog-aware? I am trying to find a use for it, but I cant. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jiri Kuthan wrote: > Hi Bill, > > plain-kamailio

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Jiri Kuthan
Hi Bill, plain-kamailio cannot send BYEs (not sure if some module can). The point is the proxy is sort of "passive element" and doesn't initiate transactions on its own. Why isn't it enough to have the BYEs sent by UAC? I mean sometimes there can be some confusing situations (say forking downs

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Vassilis Radis
Thank you jiri, I totally agree, but I have a question that occured to me now and I cant find answer: If Kamailio receives a CANCEL from a UAC after kamailio has responded with a 200 to the corresponding INVITE, what does t_relay_cancel() do in the following 2 cases: 1. CANCEL received before th

Re: [SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Jiri Kuthan
On 5/3/13 11:04 AM, Vassilis Radis wrote: Hello all, In the documentation of the t_relay_cancel() (TM module) there is an example that reads: if (method == CANCEL) { if (!t_relay_cancel()) { # implicit drop if relaying was successful, # nothing to do # corr

[SR-Users] Handling of CANCEL in case of no matching INVITE

2013-05-03 Thread Vassilis Radis
Hello all, In the documentation of the t_relay_cancel() (TM module) there is an example that reads: if (method == CANCEL) { if (!t_relay_cancel()) { # implicit drop if relaying was successful, # nothing to do # corresponding INVITE transaction found but error o