Hi Alex, It seems to be exactly what I want to do.
Unfortunately, I'm running SER 0.9.x and "t_check_trans" doesn't exist. I was thinking also that I can probably do a "setflag" on an INVITE and test it within the onreply-route. In that case, CANCEL should never came into this call-flow. Because, what I want to do exactly, is to handle a call for launching a script. And so far I launched the script on ACK, therefore, the CANCEL came in this case too. I hope I'm clear. Regards, Adrien Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 11:11 -0400, Alex Balashov a écrit : > Hi Adrien, > > On 07/06/2010 10:39 AM, inge wrote: > > > Firstly, I was thinking to make a difference using the CSeq field, but > > it seems that the CSeq on ACK contains the ACK himself. Probably because > > ACK is a request and not a response. > > You are correct; ACK is a wholly different request and a separate > transaction from the exchange it is meant to acknowledge. > > It is possible to differentiate end-to-end vs. hop-by-hop ACKs using > t_check_trans(): > > http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.0.x/modules/tm.html#t_check_trans > > See its usage in the stock kamailio.cfg. > > Note that 200 response to CANCEL does not generate an ACK, but a 487 > response does, so your question is rather academic. > _______________________________________________ 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