Re: [Serusers] Local ACKs for SER-SEMS

26 Nov 2005

...
   I've tried
to find some meaning in what you sent, but I don't really know
 the details of the ACK hack (pun not intended) Jan mentioned. To me it 
 looks
 like the ACK is absorbed correctly. 
 In the logs provided, the acks are not absorbed at all (well, yes, due
 to a hack in my config file ... but otherwise not). 
? Hm, I saw some debug lines on ACK absorbed...?!

...
  However, the
REGISTER messages confuses
 me a bit. Also, you don't record_route CANCELs and ACKs, why? 
 I don't know :) So far it worked fine. Do you think that
 record-routing the ACKs may solve this problem? ( See the following
 paragraph for a strange development )

 Also, we checked yesterday and ... surprise! :)
 We discovered this "feature" after upgrading from ser_0.9.0 to
 ser_0.9.4 ... we still have some pcs with ser_0.9.0 (ser.cfg and sems
 are the same overall), and they don't show this behavior (OK/ACK being
 resent for a while). This only happens in the newer setups with
 ser_0.9.4 
Hm. Strange. I'm not enough on-top-of diffs from 0.9.0 to say anything smart 
about that :-)
You had some strange messages in there about message with multicast address 
looped back.
You alsoe have this:
Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a reply for ACK!!
Which normally means that an ACK hits an sl_send_reply() somewhere in your 
script.
And now that I had another look at your config, I see that you loose_route 
to ROUTE_RELAY, but then you do lookup before t_relay(). Loose routing is 
NOT looking up and ACKs with Route should not be looked up, but just 
t_relayed. That may introduce some problems.
I would guess that the Warning for ACK above is due to this:
if( ! lookup("location") ) {
sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
break;
}
in your ROUTE_RELAY.
g-) 

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Re: [Serusers] Local ACKs for SER-SEMS