2010/4/29 pars3c <par...@gmail.com>: > Hi, i have a problem about the handling of the “cancel” message.
> The B side answer with OK, after a while , a send a CANCEL. I don’t know why > Kamailio don’t forward this message to the B side. Because Kamailio already received a 200 for the INVITE transaction so it's terminated, there is nothing to cancel hen the CANCEL arrives. > B retry to send the OK message, then A send the ACK. > > At the end , B send BYE , but A don’t have the transactin. This is because Kamailio replied 200 to the CANCEL so A still believes it has cancelled and has terminated it locally. Perhaps Kamailio should reply 404 to the CANCEL as a 200 was already received for the INVITE (could it be a bug?). However your UAC is doing strange things: - Why does A send a CANCEL after receiving a 200 OK for the INVITE? - Also if A sends an ACK for the 200 (INVITE) it *does* know that the transaction is still alive so shouldn't reply 481. The behavior of UAC A is not very common and seems buggy IMHO. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
