<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
<br>
the cancel is matched based on via branch value or the other tokens
in the request (callid, cseq, ...). If you want to restrict on
matching by source ip/port, you have to do it in the configuration
file.<br>
<br>
I guess that gives you what you need by default.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/06/15 21:22, Volkan Hatem wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGtjSczB5uVU+ibLqRNfQGSo_ZzNO3yD77VPG2OnUK2A40cqmw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi All,<br>
<br>
I searched list archives and have not seen a discussion on this
issue.<br>
<br>
According to 3261, CANCEL transaction matching follows the rules
listed in section 17.2.3:<br>
<br>
[...snip...]<br>
1. the branch parameter in the request is equal to the one
in the<br>
top Via header field of the request that created the<br>
transaction, and<br>
<br>
2. the sent-by value in the top Via of the request is
equal to the<br>
one in the request that created the transaction, and<br>
[...snip...]<br>
<br>
However, according to RFC 6141 (which I don't think kamailio
implemented yet) suggests generating a CANCEL request (UAC)
after losing contact (section 5.5):<br>
<br>
[...snip...]<br>
<br>
When a UAC moves to a new contact and loses its old contact,
it will<br>
not be able to receive responses to the re-INVITE.
Consequently, it<br>
will never generate an ACK request.<br>
<br>
Such a UAC SHOULD generate a CANCEL request to cancel the
re-INVITE<br>
and cause the INVITE client transaction corresponding to the<br>
re-INVITE to enter the "Terminated" state. The UAC SHOULD
also send<br>
a new re-INVITE in order to make sure that both UAs have a
common<br>
view of the state of the session.<br>
<div>[...snip...]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My interpretation is that sent-by comparison is ruled out
because clearly IP:PORT will not match anymore.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you think this is the right interpretation?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is there a plan to implement RFC 6141?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>-volkan</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org">sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev">http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twitter.com/#!/miconda">http://twitter.com/#!/miconda</a> - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda">http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda</a>
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.asipto.com">http://www.asipto.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>