2010/11/24 Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com>: > On 11/24/2010 10:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > >> It works as I expected: >> >> - The CANCEL arrives to Kamailio (1.5) with Totag (bug in UAC). >> >> - Kamailio does t_relay() for the CANCEL without checking >> loose-routing or Totag (CANCEL threatment is now above loose-routing >> section). >> >> - Kamailio replies 200 to the CANCEL and generates its own CANCEL (of >> course with no Totag). > > It seems to me that this should not work here if Kamailio were being > properly strict. > > As per RFC 3261 Section 9.1, "Client Behavior" in "Canceling a Request: > > 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. > > If the initial INVITE did not have a To tag (which, it of course, doesn't), > neither should the CANCEL. Otherwise, this CANCEL should not be matched.
I know, sure. This is a bug in the UAC. I have done a workaround in Kamailio. And as I expected, Kamailio doesn't care the existence or not of a Totag, it just matches the INVITE transaction by inspecting the Via branch (which allows my workaround). -- 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
