Well, the vendor is just mistaken. ;-) CANCELs are generated internally by the proxy, since they're a hop-by-hop construct. You're going to have a hard time influencing their content on that level. The vendor's suggestion is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
-- Alex > On Nov 25, 2024, at 1:16 am, nz deals <nzdealsh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Alex. > I raised this issue with Vendor support, and their suggestion was to include > the To-tag in the CANCEL request, given that the 180 Ringing and 183 Session > Progress responses from the Cisco phone include To-tags. Based on their > feedback, they believe the absence of the To-tag in the CANCEL might be > contributing to the rejection with a 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist > error. > From my observations, my SBC adheres to SIP standards, but since this > behavior aligns with Vendor's recommendation and might help address the > issue, I wanted to explore this approach as a potential workaround. > > Regards, > Jason > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 at 17:46, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Initial INVITEs do not ever have a To-tag. So, the initial INVITE didn't have > a To-tag, not because of any quirk or eccentricity, but because initial > INVITEs aren't supposed to have To-tags. If the initial INVITE being CANCEL'd > doesn't have a To-tag, the CANCEL shouldn't have a To-tag. The CANCEL should > not have a To-tag. > > I suspect your theory of why the CANCEL is being rejected by the Cisco phone > is not correct. > > -- Alex > > > On Nov 24, 2024, at 10:42 pm, nz deals <nzdealsh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts or input on this? > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards, > > Jason > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 at 10:20, nz deals <nzdealsh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Community > > I’m encountering a strange issue with CANCEL requests in my opensips 3.4.2 > > setup. Here’s the scenario: > > • My carrier sends the initial INVITE without a tag in the To header, > > which I forward to a Cisco phone. > > • The Cisco phone responds with a 180 Ringing message, which includes a > > tag in the To header. > > • When I send a CANCEL request, my carrier does not include the tag in > > the To header, and as a result, OpenSIPS also forwards the CANCEL to the > > Cisco phone without the tag. > > Because of this, the Cisco phone responds with a 481 Call/Transaction Does > > Not Exist error, and the call remains active on the phone without being > > canceled. > > I’ve tried modifying the CANCEL request to include the tag in the To > > header, but I wasn’t able to modify because the initial INVITE doesn’t have > > a tag in the To header. > > Has anyone experienced a similar issue or found a way to fix this? Any > > guidance would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards, > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list > > Users@lists.opensips.org > > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > -- > Alex Balashov > Principal Consultant > Evariste Systems LLC > Web: https://evaristesys.com > Tel: +1-706-510-6800 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
