It is saying you MUST forward it. You forward it (without creating state) to the endpoint to which you would've forwarded a similar INVITE.
I think this is a best-effort and I don't think is 100%-guaranteed to get to where it needs to go. Like what about sequential forking scenarios? I'm not sure what you for parallel-forked scenarios - for me it seems that a proxy should send the CANCEL it to all forks. Regards Attila -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo Sent: 19 April 2011 13:44 To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] Stateful proxy and CANCEL for a non matchingtransaction => 481? Hi, according to RFC 3261 - 16.10 CANCEL Processing (Proxy) If a response context is not found, the element does not have any knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST statelessly forward the CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the associated request previously). In my case I do know that my proxy doesn't behave as a stateless proxy so I see no reason to forward a CANCEL if it doesn't match a server transaction. Could then the proxy generate a 481 by its own? or should it discard the CANCEL request and reply nothing? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
