[OpenSIPS-Users] Call sequence in serial forking

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at opensips.org
Mon Jan 12 15:39:40 CET 2015


Hi John,

AFAIK, there is no need to increase the cseq during normal serial 
forking. The only known issue is if you do the serial forking for 
authentication purposes (you received a 401/7 and you do serial forking 
with credentials) - is this case you need to increase the cseq.

But once again, the classic serial forking does not require any change 
in cseq.

Regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com

On 12.01.2015 12:09, John Nash wrote:
> I am testing one setup where opensips drouting module sends call to 
> "Freeswitch"  and I encountered one situation ...
>
> UA sends Invite to opensips, opensips uses drouting module and sends 
> Invite to Freeswitch , callee rejects the call and opensips sends ACK 
> to freeswitch and sends second invite (from failure route). This 
> second invite (which has same call id but different branch in via) is 
> not treated as another transaction by freeswitch and it sends back SIP 
> 482 Request merged response.
>
> I had the same setup tested using SEMS as SBC some times back 
> successfully. I am not sure which side this issue should be taken care 
> of (opensips or freeswitch)
>
> I looked in some freeswitch mail archives and in one post I can see 
> someone suggesting that from opensips side we should increase Cseq in 
> case of second invite. I think this can be done using script but I am 
> not sure if i should do or not.
> This is the post
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/2013-February/092600.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150112/967406a6/attachment.htm>


More information about the Users mailing list