[Serusers] dealing with parallel forking ...

[Cesc Santa]

On 8/3/07, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de> wrote:
> samuel wrote:
> > inline...
> >
> > 2007/8/3, Olaf Bergmann <Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de
> > <mailto:Olaf.Bergmann at freenet-ag.de>>:
> >
> >     Cesc Santa wrote:
> >
> >
> >     > I am doing some tests and it is not really a problem ... but maybe
> >     > someone has a better idea. In my configuration, the first 200 OK
> >     > received is forwarded to the caller and the whole SIP session setup
> >     > (caller + 1st callee).
> >     > Next 200 OKs are also delivered to the caller,
> >
> >     That is the correct behavior of a SIP proxy.
> >
> >
> > I think the proper forking behaviour is to send a CANCEL to all branches
> > upon receiving a 200 from one of them and I think that SER does this
> > automatically... isn't it??
>
> Correct: if you used append_branch (IIRC you did) the call leg will
> be canceled by SER. But as there is a race condition due to network
> latency, a 200 OK might have been sent by the receiving UA before
> the CANCEL was received.
>

Hi Olaf,

It seems that, for some reason, my SER is not cancelling the branches
after reception
of the first 200 OK ... any idea? where would the code be?
For testing, one of the endpoints is asterisk's echo ...
The other callee is a phone, and apart from sending 100 and 183, I
wait some seconds before I decide to pick up ... enough for SER to
send a CANCEL, which never happends.

The second 200 OK is not matched to any transaction, so it would seem
like SER has already deleted it ... when does that happen? I've done
some stuff with SER ... but the TM module is really hardcore :)