Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-08 Thread inge
Very clear ! thanks. Le jeudi 08 juillet 2010 à 13:00 +0200, Klaus Darilion a écrit : > > Am 07.07.2010 19:30, schrieb inge: > > Yes, why not, but in a few moment ;) > > > > Does SER 3.0 released ? In the siprouter project ? > > There is no ser/sip-router 3.0 "release". You have to checkout the

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-08 Thread Klaus Darilion
Am 07.07.2010 19:30, schrieb inge: Yes, why not, but in a few moment ;) Does SER 3.0 released ? In the siprouter project ? There is no ser/sip-router 3.0 "release". You have to checkout the sip-router 3.0 branch from git if you want "ser" flavor of sip-router. If you do not care about the

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-07 Thread inge
Yes, why not, but in a few moment ;) Does SER 3.0 released ? In the siprouter project ? Le mercredi 07 juillet 2010 à 09:17 +0200, Klaus Darilion a écrit : > > Am 06.07.2010 20:03, schrieb inge: > > I quickly tried this but I cannot used "exec" within the onreply_route. > > > > So the problem s

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-07 Thread Klaus Darilion
Am 06.07.2010 20:03, schrieb inge: I quickly tried this but I cannot used "exec" within the onreply_route. So the problem stay the same. I don't know how to execute my script only on established calls... Upgrade to 3.0 ;-) regards klaus ___ SIP E

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread inge
I quickly tried this but I cannot used "exec" within the onreply_route. So the problem stay the same. I don't know how to execute my script only on established calls... Any help/suggestion would be appreciate. Thank you ! Regards, Adrien Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 19:32 +0200, inge a écrit : >

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread inge
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

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2010/7/6 Iñaki Baz Castillo : > 2010/7/6 inge : >> it seems that the CSeq on ACK contains the ACK himself. Probably because >> ACK is a request and not a response. > > Please explain better what you mean as this text makes no lot of sense :) Ah, you meant the method within the CSeq header, then it

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread Alex Balashov
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 separat

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2010/7/6 inge : > it seems that the CSeq on ACK contains the ACK himself. Probably because > ACK is a request and not a response. Please explain better what you mean as this text makes no lot of sense :) -- Iñaki Baz Castillo ___ SIP Express Router (

[SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

2010-07-06 Thread inge
Hello all, I need to work on particular ACK within the configuration of SER 0.9.9. 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. Would it be possible to proceed