Hi John,
AFAIK, there is no need to increase the cseq during normal serial
forking. The only known issue is if you do the serial forking for
authentication purposes (you received a 401/7 and you do serial forking
with credentials) - is this case you need to increase the cseq.
But once again, the classic serial forking does not require any change
in cseq.
Regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
On 12.01.2015 12:09, John Nash wrote:
I am testing one setup where opensips drouting module sends call to
"Freeswitch" and I encountered one situation ...
UA sends Invite to opensips, opensips uses drouting module and sends
Invite to Freeswitch , callee rejects the call and opensips sends ACK
to freeswitch and sends second invite (from failure route). This
second invite (which has same call id but different branch in via) is
not treated as another transaction by freeswitch and it sends back SIP
482 Request merged response.
I had the same setup tested using SEMS as SBC some times back
successfully. I am not sure which side this issue should be taken care
of (opensips or freeswitch)
I looked in some freeswitch mail archives and in one post I can see
someone suggesting that from opensips side we should increase Cseq in
case of second invite. I think this can be done using script but I am
not sure if i should do or not.
This is the post
http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/2013-February/092600.html
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
