On Jul 06, 2010 at 14:06, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at> wrote: > Obiously the device is buggy. > > But there is also on strange thing at Kamailio: it retransmits the > CANCEL although it has already received 481 response on the CANCEL > request.
The first 481 stops the CANCEL retransmissions, however each additional provisional reply received after that will trigger a one-time CANCEL retransmission. That's why you see another retransmission after the 481, it's the "response" to the 180... Andrei > > regards > klaus > > Am 06.07.2010 00:06, schrieb David: > >Hello, > > > >Here are the corrected attachments, I sent the email from Window's > >wordpad which set it to RTF by default. > > > >Here are proper txt logs. > > > >David > > > >On 2010-07-05 17:47, David wrote: > >>Hello, > >> > >>I upgraded to Kamailio 3.0 and the CANCEL is being sent after it > >>receives a 100 Trying, as mentioned in RFC3261 section 9. > >> > >>I stripped down the config file to the bare minimum so that it is > >>easier to debug ( see attached kamailio.cfg ) > >> > >>I have included my config file as well as a packet sniff that was done > >>with ngrep. > >> > >>As you can see, the packets are in the correct order, but the Linksys > >>is crying "Call leg Transaction does not exist" despite the fact that > >>the CANCEL has ( as far as I can tell ) responded according to > >>RFC3261. I compared the headers that are required by RFC ( The > >>Request-URI, Call-ID, To, the numeric part of CSeq, and From header > >>fields in the CANCEL request MUST be identical to those in the request > >>being cancelled, including tags. ) but it still says Call Leg > >>Transaction does not exist. ( see ngrep-sip-wip-310.log ). > >> > >>If I send the CANCEL once the device is ringing, it works fine ( see > >>sip-trace-good.log ). > >> > >>If I send the CANCEL after the 100 Trying but before the 180 Ringing ( > >>which is acceptable according to RFC3261 ), the device returns call > >>leg incorrect. > >> > >>This looks suspiciously like a bug in the WIP310, but I am not sure. > >> > >>Can someone please shed some light on my situation? > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>David > >> > >>On 2010-06-17 16:59, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote: > >>>On Jun 17, 2010 at 16:39, David<kamailio....@spam.lublink.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Hello, > >>>> > >>>>I had a look at RFC 3261, section 9.1. The trouble is that Kamailio > >>>>is answering "100 Trying" to the caller, so the it is ok for the > >>>>caller to send back a CANCEL request. Trouble is Kamailio forwards > >>>>the request to the called user even though the called user never > >>>>sent a provisional response. > >>>> > >>>>Since the Kamailio server never received a provisional request, it > >>>>is therefore incorrect for it to forward the CANCEL request to the > >>>>called user. ( correct me if I am wrong ). > >>>> > >>>Try 3.0 (kamailio or sip-router). You can control how unreplied branches > >>>are canceled, see > >>>http://sip-router.org/docbook/sip-router/branch/master/modules/tm/tm.html#cancel_b_method > >>> > >>> > >>>Andrei > >>> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 > >> > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
