sr-users February 2008

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

146 participants
260 discussions

[OpenSER-Users] No answers whatssoever??
by Taisto Qvist (WM) 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi, and sorry if I am getting repetitious but since I am not getting any replies on what I thought was an important question(rfc-complicance) I need to ask the question again...(at least indicate why you disagree with me?) I was hoping someone could comment on what I thought was some fairly clear rfc-references, that indicate that an ACK for 2xx should NOT match the INVITE transaction, since it should be terminated at reception/sending of 2xx. I hope I dont offend in any way, I would just … [View More]like to get some clarification on this. I hope you can clarify your standpoint, especially if you disagree with me, which I get the feeling you do. Kind Regards Taisto Qvist Taisto Qvist wrote: > I seems like we dont agree on the interpretation of the txn handling > for invite. Sure, there is a timer for handling retransmitted responses, > but thats in earlier states than Terminated. > Sure, there is nothing that says that the inner workings of your > transactions > must exactly behave as the statemachine diagrams in the rfc as long as the > external behavior stays the same, but still, I think that the ACK for 2xx > should not match the INVITE txn. > (It probably boils down to how rfc-isch you want to be.) > > >The end-to-end ACK establish a separate transaction (RFC 3261) and these > >ACKs are not match as part of the INVITE transactions, but correlated > >with them. > > [TQ] > Where does it say that ACKs establish a separate transaction? > There is no defined ACK transaction, only INVITE/nonInvite, server and > client. > The ACK is either a part of the INVITE txn, or its a separate request, > but I would > never call it a standalone transaction. > The real purpose of txn's (in my view), is to enable/simplify forking, > and to > handle retransmissions. Retransmissions of ACK and 2xx, are done by > the UAC/UAS, > so there is no need for a ack-txn. > > >but even describe the wait timer. So, there is no contradiction. > [TQ] > I'd say there is. Where does it describe that this wait-timer should be > used for all responses, or for matching ALL acks? > > My two main reasons for saying that ACKs for 2xx should not be matched, > come from the following two texts. (17.1.1.2, and 17.2.1) > > 17.1.1.2 (client invite txn) > The client transaction MUST be destroyed the instant it enters the > > "Terminated" state. This is actually necessary to guarantee correct > operation. The reason is that 2xx responses to an INVITE are treated > differently; each one is forwarded by proxies, and the ACK handling > in a UAC is different. Thus, each 2xx needs to be passed to a proxy > core (so that it can be forwarded) and to a UAC core (so it can be > acknowledged). No transaction layer processing takes place. > Whenever a response is received by the transport, if the transport > layer finds no matching client transaction (using the rules of > Section 17.1.3), the response is passed directly to the core. Since > the matching client transaction is destroyed by the first 2xx, > > subsequent 2xx will find no match and therefore be passed to the > core. > > [TQ] > It even says "actually nessesary to guarantee...." > Since the txn's are there to (among other things) absorb retransmissions, > the receiving the 2xx MUST destroy the txn, so that when the next > retransmission > of 2xx is received, it is not consumed by the txn layer. > This is what your txn-layer does for 3++ right? Any additional 3++ > received on > a txn while waiting for Timer D to expire, will just be consumed, and > the proxy > core will never have to process it. > > > 17.2.1. (server invite txn) > The purpose of the "Confirmed" state is to absorb any additional ACK > messages that arrive, triggered from retransmissions of the final > response. > ..snip... > Once the transaction is in the "Terminated" state, it MUST be destroyed > immediately. > > [TQ] > The Confirmed state is there to absorb retransmissions, not the > terminated. > When receiving 2xx you go directly to terminated bypassing confirmed. > > Also, in 18.2.1 the text explicitly says: > > .. Note that when a UAS core sends a 2xx response to INVITE, > the server transaction is destroyed. This means that when the ACK > arrives, > there will be no matching server transaction, and based on this rule, > the ACK is passed to the UAS core, where it is processed. > > Thats faily clear right? :-) > The think that puzzles my a little bit though, is that you must have added > "extra" code for this matching...? > I mean, you're using the ;branch=z9xxxx for transaction matching right, if > its there? And the ACK for 2xx doesnt have the same branch, indicating > a "new txn". > > So matching ALL ACKs would imply that for any ACK that doesnt match a txn, > your really checking up Call-Id's, tags and stuff, just to be able to > match > this ACK to the 2xx? > > Or are you checking callid's, cseq's, tags, and stuff, for ALL > requests in your > txn matching? > > Now, I been working on a sip-stack the last few years myself, and I > naturally > know that there is often a need to match the ACK, and the stack I've > build has > similar functions, it just doesnt do it on the txn layer, where we try > to be as > RFC-isch as possible. > > What I would like, is simply have some function-parameters to the > t_check_trans(<DEFANGED_param>), > or even better in my little mind, a "modparam("tm", > "ack_2xx_matching", 1)". > > I am looking forward to hearing your reply, and in the mean time, > thanks to all of you developers for an extraordinary software :-) > > Regards > Taisto Qvist > > > Hi guys, > > > > Just to bring some clarifications on the TM module. > > > > once a transaction is completed (negative or 2xx reply), it is put on > > wait (wait timer - see RFC3261) for catching any potential > > retransmissions of replies. > > So, the transaction is completed, but not removed from memory - RFC does > > not say that you need to trash immediately all the transaction > > information, but even describe the wait timer. So, there is no > > contradiction. > > > > The ACK (for 2xx)catching is done based on the completed INVITE > > transaction (from wait timer) - nothing else. > > > > > > Inaki, could you please detail what you mean by: > > > > <quote> > > In my opinion OpenSer does a special treatment for ACK in tm mode, > even if > > they are for failed transaction (hop-by-hop ACK's) or succesfull INVITE > > (end-to-end ACK's). > > > > </quote> > > > > Maybe I can explain you more if I understand you question.... > > > > Regards, > > Bogdan > ---- Taisto Qvist, IP-Solutions Mobile: +46-708-88 02 63 "We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile, You will be approximated" [View Less]

4 10

[OpenSER-Users] no-answer timeout
by Mark Sayer 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi - I am using 1.2.1-notls. When using t_relay() to INVITE a call, I assume that the timeout before returning a 408 would be governed by fr_inv_timer and fr_inv_timer_avp. Although the 1.2 documentation states that the default for fr_inv_timer is 120 seconds I seem to get a timeout at 60 seconds and neither fr_inv_timer or fr_inv_timer_avp seems to have any effect. Have a made an error in interpreting the docs? How should I be varying this timeout? Thanks, Mark

4 13

[OpenSER-Users] Out of order notifications
by Leonard Broman 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi! I have integrated OpenSER as a dedicated presence server in an ims network and I'm somewhat suffering from the delays the traversal of the ims core causes. Here's whats happening: Upon subscription the presence module sends a 202 Accepted (actually named OK, cosmetic bug?). At almost the same instant it also sends the first, in-dialog notify. What happens later is that sometimes the notify arrives before the ok. When this happens the client (on top of jain-sip) cannot identify the … [View More]

1 0

[OpenSER-Users] XMLRPC
by Helmut Kuper 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I try to get some Informations from openser via mi_xmlrpc module. Unfortunately I allways get an "404 Not found" Reply back from openser. I checked the communication between openser and php xml client. My client sends this to openser: POST / HTTP/1.0 Host: 85.16.246.9 Content-Type: text/xml User-Agent: me Content-length: 157 <?xml version="1.0"?> <methodCall> <methodName>get_statistics</methodName> <params> … [View More]

2 2

Re: [OpenSER-Users] help.. openser 1.3.0 crash -- presence/ BLA
by Anca Vamanu 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi, I made the fix for both 1.3 and 1.4 versions. There is no directory with patches. The newest version is found in the on svn for branch 1.3 and trunk respectively. If you want to make use of this patch you have to update to download the latest svn version. See: http://www.openser.org/mos/view/Download/. <http://www.openser.org/mos/view/Download/> regards, Anca Vamanu Jeremy George wrote: > Anca, > > Is this a patch for 1.3? Or, a fix that went into the 1.4 … [View More]

2 1

Re: [OpenSER-Users] help.. openser 1.3.0 crash -- presence/ BLA
by Jeremy George 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hey Anca, That's great. Thanks. So, I have now openser-1.3.x-svn-latest.tgz . If it doesn't wear your patience thin with too-simple questions, I'd like to ask just a couple more. Is this version still considered a stable release? And, I can't find a file within the tarball that distinguishes this version from others. For example, the ChangeLog doesn't show it. Where would I find such information? Again, thanks for your expertise, and patience. - Jeremy >-----Original … [View More]

2 2

Re: [OpenSER-Users] Call timeout
by Bogdan-Andrei Iancu 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi David, The setup time is actually controlled by TM (during the INVITE transaction). If you want to set terminate a call, see the dialog module, in openser 1.3 version: http://www.openser.org/docs/modules/1.3.x/dialog.html#AEN461 regards, Bogdan David Villasmil wrote: > Hello, > > Timeout for a setup I understand is done with SST/Dialog, I mean > disconnect an established call. > > > thanks > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu &… [View More]

1 0

[Serusers] OpenSER summit at VONX Spring 2008
by Greger Viken Teigre 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

I know many SER users also use OpenSER in combination with SER. Indeed, I see also quite a lot of confusion with people asking OpenSER questions on the SER mailing list... So, not to add to the confusion: OpenSER is a fork of the original SIP Express Router project, where OpenSER and SER code bases started to diverge at that point. It was only the SIP proxy of iptel.org that was forked, thus: SEMS, SERWeb, and sipsak are still iptel.org only projects with no forks (rtpproxy.org, … [View More]

1 0

[OpenSER-Users] User Documentation - request for participation
by Henning Westerholt 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hello all, its a well know fact that there exists some issues with the OpenSER documentation, for some parts there is almost no documentation available at all. Existing documentation is sometimes a little bit unstructured or incomplete. Its hard for new users to understand the configuration of the server, let alone how they should setup some services. And after he or she has gone through the basics, its again the same for configuring complex modules.. During the last IRC meeting we … [View More]

1 0

[OpenSER-Users] Call timeout
by David Villasmil 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hello all, I have a network already operational for voip-voip/voip-pstn servicing about 20k customer and all is "well". At the moment I'm using Asterisk as a B2BUA mainly for call timeout capabilities. Is there absolutely NO WAY of setting a call timeout (disconnect) after X seconds? Do I have to use a separate B2BUA? Thanks everyone. David

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users February 2008