On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 21:47 +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 21:58 +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > there is a problem with the transaction matching code. If Yxa receives > > an INVITE request over TCP and CANCEL over UDP, then Yxa is not able to > > find the INVITE transaction and instead forwards the CANCEL in a new > > transaction. This new transaction in turn receives a 481 response, since > > it didn't match the INVITE Yxa sent earlier. > > > > I think the problem is in the sipheader:via_sentby/1, which should > > ignore the transport protocol since there is no guaranteed that the > > INVITE and CANCEL are received over the same transport protocol. The > > sender might have switched to TCP for the INVITE because of its size, > > and defaults to UDP for CANCEL.
I _finally_ got the time to finish this (r1728, and then merged to trunk in r1729). As usual, I made a much bigger deal of things in my quest to have proper regression testing for each and every bug I fix. I ended up moving a bunch of functions from sipheader.erl to transactionstatelist.erl and then implementing the first set of unit tests for the transaction matching code. Good thing - too bad it took so long :(. /Fredrik _______________________________________________ Yxa-devel mailing list Yxa-devel@lists.su.se https://lists.su.se/mailman/listinfo/yxa-devel
