Hi,<br> Yes it was a loop back going on thats why i got too many hops. Based on the suggestion I put some thing like this for CANCEL method before relaying<br>my original configuration is exactly like this. <br> http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/SER+example+NAThelper<br> <br> if(method=="CANCEL")<br> {<br> if(!lookup("location"))<br>
{<br> log(1, "Location not found\n");<br> }<br> fix_nated_contact();<br> force_rport();<br> };<br><br>but it created two problems.<br>1. The cancel is now sent to B party. ( which sends error that the call transaction does not exist, ofcourse which is rite since we haven't sent any INVITE to B
party)<br>2. SER goes in loop of ACK<br>3. later b side will get invite as well, and the ghost call still exists.<br><br><br>This is how it looks like<br>Caller SER Callee<br> INVITE<br>---------------------------------><br> <br> CANCEL<br> ---------------------------------><br><br>
CANCEL<br> ---------------------------------><br> 481 (tran does not exist)<br> <---------------------------------<br><br> Loopback
OF ACK<br> 100 Trying <br><---------------------------------<br> <br> INVITE<br> ---------------------------------><br>rest of call follows.............<br> <br> <br>Best Regards,<br>Abdul Qaidr<br><br><b><i>Jiri Kuthan <jiri@iptel.org></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> I think that's yet another issue
(which then reinstatiates itself in some other issue) --<br>you must have a loop in your script which you have to fix first. Just ngrep loopback interface<br>to verify this is the cause of the problem.<br><br>-jiri<br><br>At 13:34 16/02/2007, Abdul Qadir wrote:<br>>Hi,<br>><br>>>I think ser should remember canceled transactions and send CANCEL in <br>>>case of delayed provisional replies.<br>><br>>At present I don't think its working like this, As soon as CANCEL hit SER an immediate too many hops is returned to sender and call continues....resulting in ghost call, where A party has dropped after sending cancel and B still carries on as no cancel was sent to B.<br>><br>>Best Regards,<br>>Abdul Qadir<br>><br>>Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at> wrote:<br>>Abdul Qadir wrote:<br>>> Hi , <br>>> <br>>> I tried to call from one nokia sip (E61 and other models )phone to another nokia sip phone. The call works
fine. The problem comes only when I call from Phone A to Phone B and then immediately cancel the call(from Phone A). The Phone A will hangup the call as it sent CANCEL but the SER will ignore this CANCEL and still send INVITE to Phone B resulting in a ghost call situation.<br>>> <br>><br>>Hi!<br>><br>>I think ser should remember canceled transactions and send CANCEL in <br>>case of delayed provisional replies.<br>><br>>regards<br>>klasu<br>><br>>> I tried to capture a log of message and found that Phone A "CANCEL" message is received on SER even before any provisional response from Phone B. Therefor SER doesnot relay this CANCEL request to Phone B. I even checked RFC which clearly says that UAC should not send CANCEL untill it receives any provisional response. I talked to Nokia expert and they said the 100 Trying message from your server is considered as provisional response, therefor behaviour of client is absolutely
correct.<br>>> <br>>> Is there any way I can stop 100 Trying message and still run statefull SER, so that I can verify what nokia said. Any ideas suggestions are welcome.<br>>> <br>>> Thanking you all in advance.<br>>> <br>>> Best Regards,<br>>> Abdul Qadir<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> ---------------------------------<br>>> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and <br>>> always stay connected to friends.<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>> <br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Serusers mailing list<br>>> Serusers@lists.iptel.org<br>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers<br>><br>><br>>-- <br>>Klaus Darilion<br>>nic.at<br>><br>><br>><br>><http:
//answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc="X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396545367">Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate<br>>in the <http: //answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc="X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396545367">Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. <br>>_______________________________________________<br>>Serusers mailing list<br>>Serusers@lists.iptel.org<br>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers<br><br><br><br>--<br>Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/<br><br></http:></http:></klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at></blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1>The fish are biting.<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50"> Get more visitors</a> on your site using <a href="
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50">Yahoo! Search Marketing.</a>