24 Nov
2005
24 Nov
'05
3:39 p.m.
See inline ...
On 11/24/05, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
Cesc,
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).
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
Cesc