On Jun 22, 2009 at 18:55, Jan Janak jan@iptel.org wrote:
On 22-06 15:53, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jun 22, 2009 at 16:12, Juha Heinanen jh@tutpro.com wrote:
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
In your case the final reply is 408 (timeout) and the new received one is 403. What might have happened is either the gw sent the 403 after the fr_inv_timer did hit for the branch corresponding to your fifth call or the gw sent the 403 for one of the previous branches, but it's hard to say without more info.
andrei,
i set fr_timer_avp to 3000 (3 sec) before calling t_relay. i have
^^^^^^ the avp timers are in seconds, so you shouldset them it to 3. All the other timeouts are in ms (I'll add a note to the docs).
Shouldn't we change the unit of AVP timers to ms too, just to be consistent? I've bumped into this inconsistency many times in the past and it was always a great source of confusion for me.
Since I think new scripts should use t_set_fr() I don't have any preference for fr_timer_avp unit. However if we change it, both ser and kamailio users that have it set in seconds somewhere in some DB, will have problems. We could change its name to fr_timer_avp_ms (so at least users will get an error) or leave it the way it is (at least is documented now, and while inconsistent, it will have the minimum migration impact).
Andrei