Andreas Granig schrieb: > Hi all, > > I've a Cisco PGW interconnecting with an OpenSER server. The INVITE is > sent to OpenSER, which does some record-routing via some different hops > and then sends back the 180 from the called party. > If the calling party now cancels the call, the PGW tries to loose-route > the CANCEL by adding the Route header to the CANCEL and altering the > R-URI, which is rejected by my OpenSER since I don't allow initial > loose-routing. > > So the question is: is it valid for a CANCEL to carry a Route header > which wasn't available in the INVITE? §9.1 of RFC3261 says it MUST > contain the Route header if it was present in the request being > cancelled. What about the other way around? I heavily suspect it's > violating the RFC since CANCEL should be more or less a 1:1 copy of the > INVITE, but can anyone confirm this?
I think it is a bug in the Cisco. klaus > If it violates the RFC, anyone with some Cisco knowledge who knows how > to disable this behavior, or is it a known bug? > > Cheers, > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
