Hi,
This is happening in the WITHINDLG route of our config. For
gruu'd clients, we run t_check_trans and then do the location
lookup. I added some extra debug and found it is returning -1
for ACKs to both 407 and 200 in-dialog responses.
route[WITHINDLG] {
if (has_totag()) {
if (is_method("ACK")) {
xlog("L_WARN", "Handling ACK...\n");
t_check_trans();
xlog("L_WARN", "...returned
$rc\n");
}
...
# lookup/forward etc.
}
}
Hugh
On 15/07/2013 15:18, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
because of the route headers, I guess there is a different path
in config file, not hitting t_check_trans() from config for ACK
(or at least the one I expected), ending in looking up the r-uri
via location, like normal requests within dialog.
Can you try to hanlde the ack with t_check_trans() on that
config path as well, before changing r-uri?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 7/15/13 10:28 AM, Hugh Waite
wrote:
Hi,
I've attached the signalling trace of this call.
The ACK does have a Route set, but we think this is correct
according to §17.1.1.3 of RFC3261.
" If the INVITE request whose response is being acknowledged
had Route header fields, those header fields MUST appear in
the ACK. This is to ensure that the ACK can be routed properly
through any downstream stateless proxies. "
A failure response to an INVITE does not have a Contact header
and a reINVITE does not Record-Route, so the ACK needs to be
constructed in the same way as the INVITE w.r.t. request URI
and Route set.
When the ACK for the 407 arrives, can kamailio detect that the
transaction is in the 'Completed' state and drop it [1]?
Hugh
[1] RFC 6026 §8.6 which updates RFC3261 §17.2.1
On 12/07/2013 16:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
iirc, ACKs for negative replies should be hop-by-hop,
without any route set. Maybe you can paste a ngrep with
invite/407/ack to see exactly what is there.
On the other hand, t_check_trans() for ack returns true if
there is an active invite transaction associated with it,
because ack itself does not create transaction, being a
request that doesn't take a reply.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 7/12/13 5:11 PM, Hugh Waite wrote:
Hello,
I have a question on the use of t_check_trans for
in-dialog requests.
If an in-dialog INVITE is challenged by kamailio (sending
a 407 response), the ACK should be absorbed. However, the
t_check_trans function does not terminate the script. In
our config, this means the ACK gets sent to the client due
to the route-set.
Should t_check_trans recognise that this transaction was
rejected locally, even though there is an onward
route-set?
Hugh
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Hugh Waite
Principal Design Engineer
Crocodile RCS Ltd.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev