Hi, I would like to submit to you the following problem: we have two SIP clients (A and B) and a SIP proxy (P). A sends INVITE to P, P forwards the request to B and answers 100 to A B answers with 180 to P, P forwards response to A B crashes (and optionally restarts but it is not required for the scenario)
Now if either A cancels his pending transaction to P or P cancels his pending transaction to B (due to timer C), the INVITE transaction P->B will never be destroyed because it will not receive any final response. This because Cancel will receive 481 and no action is taken by B to respond to an Invite transaction unknown to the receiver. This problem arise also if A and B talk directly without P and A cancels pending invite transaction after B has restarted. I would like to know if there is a common solution to deal with such scenarios. Who is responsible for the removal of this dead transactions? Transaction layer or transaction user? Is it a general rule to remove all the transactions with the same branch when one of them receives a 481 response? Thanks, -- Marco Ambu R&D Software Engineering Abbeynet S.p.A. - www.abbeynet.com <http://www.abbeynet.com> Phone: +390702339331 Call me for free: <http://www.marco-ambu.sitofono.it> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
