[Serusers] Local ACKs for SER-SEMS

Cesc cesc.santa at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 11:11:31 CET 2005


Hi Greger,

Tks for taking sometime on my problem ... i appreciate it.

I have to apologize ... i think i sent a log file which does not
correspond "exactly" to the ser.cfg file attached :)  Also, some of
the questions you rise are because i removed several parts from the
ser.cfg (they are "top secret" ;D ). But the differences are minimal
...

On 11/26/05, Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
> >> 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...?!
Do you mean the "3(11987) LOG: ACK intercom transaction DOES NOT
exhist ... simply absorbing"? this is from a log message that i
removed from the config ... it it in the route (SEMS) ... there was an
if( method==ACK) { break; }

>
> >>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 :-)

I tend to think more and more that this is the key ... i will take a
look today in detail ...
Jan, or any other ... where should i look? where does the ACK cancel
the retransmission timer? are you aware of any changes from 0.9.0 to
0.9.4 that could cause this?

> You had some strange messages in there about message with multicast address
> looped back.
Ok ... got me ... i use multicast ... the message being loop'd back is
just a side effect ... but it is no problem. Those messages are
discarded at the top of the ser.cfg (not shown in the one i sent).

> 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.
There was an sl_send_reply in the route(SEMS) ... which is not there
anymore ... i was trying things ...

> 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.

Again, i removed some parts from the ser.cfg ... but the loose-routed
msgs are simply t_relayed, nothing else. See that on the if(
loose_route() ) ... i set a flag, which on a part not shown from
route(RELAY) simply t_relay() those flagged messages. Sorry for the
confusion ...


Cesc




More information about the sr-users mailing list