Juha Heinanen writes: > is the setup without the 1/2 flags like this: > > uac invite -> proxy -> invite -> proxy -> invite -> first uas > -> cancel -> proxy -> cancel -> first uas > -> invite -> second uas > > where second proxy instance calls unforce_rtpproxy when it receives the > cancel, thus tearing down also the rtpproxy session for the second leg? > > is so, why would second proxy instance be involved with rtpproxy stuff > at all because that has been already taken care of by the first > instance?
or is it so that first proxy instance didn't arm rtpproxy, but second instance did and then first instance armed rtpproxy for second uas before second instance unarmed it due to cancel? -- juha _______________________________________________ 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
