[sr-dev] RLS/PUA concurrency issue

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

I would like to look closer at the issue and figure out possible 
solution, but I am traveling for time being, so just quick thoughts.

One approach would the similar solution as for the fast CANCEL (which 
gets to the server before the INVITE). What we do (in config), we check 
if there is an INVITE transaction for the CANCEL and if not we just drop 
the CANCEL (no reply). That will force the UA to do retransmissions, 
which eventually will come after the INVITE is received/processed.

The second idea would be to have a pending queue, keep the NOTIFY for a 
while there and when 200ok is coming, look in the queue if it is 
something for respective dialog. If no dialog is created after a while, 
request that are older in the queue will be just discarded.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 8/10/11 6:19 PM, Andrew Miller wrote:
> Sorry Pete,
>
> That seems to make things better, but does not solve the issue for me.
>
> Most times this now clean when a client logs in, but about 1 in 10 I 
> am still getting an error message. In one case I had 9 error messages 
> on one log-in.
>
> Andy.
>
> On 10/08/2011 15:58, Peter Dunkley wrote:
>> I've been playing around with this here and making presence and rls 
>> use TCP instead of UDP seems to help with this problem.  Presumably 
>> this is because using TCP enforces in-order delivery of messages.
>>
>> To make presence and rls use TCP I:
>>
>>   * Added a ;transport=tcp parameter to the SIP URI I had set for
>>     presence server_address
>>   * Added a ;transport=tcp parameter to the SIP URI I had set for rls
>>     server_address
>>   * Set the rls outbound_proxy parameter to
>>     "sip:127.0.0.1;transport=tcp"
>>
>>
>> It's not a proper fix, but I think it works around the issue.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 13:40 +0200, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>> Am 01.08.2011 12:28, schrieb Andrew Miller:
>>> >  I attempted to insert a dialog entry in the hash table on sending the
>>> >  SUBSCRIBE, unfortunately this did not cure the problem
>>> >
>>> >  Has anyone any suggestions for the cleanest and easiest method to ensure
>>> >  that the 200 is handled before the NOTIFY?
>>>
>>> The cleanest solution would be to establish the dialog when the NOTIFY
>>> is received although the 200 OK is missing.
>>>
>>> The NOTIFY can be seen as an implicit 200 OK.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sr-dev mailing list
>>> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org  <mailto:sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org>
>>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Dunkley
>> Technical Director
>> Crocodile RCS Ltd
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sr-dev mailing list
>> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20110810/d8a2fe36/attachment-0001.htm>