[Users] Duplicate INVITEs - t_lookup_request and t_check_trans

[Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya]

quite quite positive. 
the reason i am so certain is that there is only *one* place in my entire config file that i actually do a t_relay() (or equivalent). I isolated all the code into route[1], to ease maintainability of my (admittedly complex) config file. 

In route[1], the relevant section is pretty damn close to 

if (!t_relay()) { 
if (!is_method("ACK")) { 
sl_reply_error(); 
} 
} 

fwiw, its 1.1.0 (latest cvs version thereof) 

cheers 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu < bogdan at voice-system.ro > 
To: mahesh at aptela.com 
Cc: Klaus Darilion < klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at >, users < users at openser.org > 
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:39:04 PM GMT-0600 
Subject: Re: [Users] Duplicate INVITEs - t_lookup_request and t_check_trans 

Hi Mahesh, 

I do not think you need t_check_tran() as t_relay() automatically 
absorbs the retransmissions. 

are you sure you are not calling t_relay() twice for the same requests? 
or calling a tm function (t_newtran) before the t_relay ?? 

regards, 
bogdan 


Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya wrote: 

>Well, i read the documentation again, and found t_lookup_request, and t_check_trans. 
>Question 1 - t_lookup_request() creates the transaction if it doesn't exist, correct? However, t_check_trans only checks to see if the transaction already exists, correct? 
> 
>Question 2 - Assuming that t_check_trans only checks to see if the transaction already exists, then is the following correct? 
> 
>Currently I do the following (after stripping out a bunch of stuff) 
> 
>if (!t_relay()) { 
> if (!is_method("ACK")) { 
> sl_reply_error(); 
> } 
>} 
> 
>should this, instead, actually look like the following? 
>if (is_method("INVITE")) { 
> if (if !t_check_tran()) { 
> t_relay(); 
> } 
>} else if (!is_method("ACK")) { 
> sl_reply_error(); 
>} 
> 
> 
> 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Klaus Darilion < klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at > 
>To: mahesh at aptela.com 
>Cc: users < users at openser.org > 
>Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:06:01 AM GMT-0600 
>Subject: Re: [Users] Duplicate INVITEs 
> 
>Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya wrote: 
> 
> 
>>We're seeing sporadic situations where fones 
>>a) send an INVITE 
>>b) ignore the 100-Trying response, and instead 
>>c) send another INVITE with the same sequence number. 
>> 
>>The question is, What should happen here? 
>> 
>> 
> 
>If the message is completely identical then it is a retransmission. 
>Retransmissions should be detected by tm module (e.g. t_relay()) and 
>absorbed, 
> 
>regards 
>klaus 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Currently, we send back a 500 response (server error). 
>>Is this correct? (i think not, cause it invariably causes the fone to go fast busy). 
>>Is this some other response that should occur? 
>> 
>>poring over 3261 resulted in a headache, and no additional clarity... 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> 
>>_______________________________________________ 
>>Users mailing list 
>> Users at openser.org 
>> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
******************************************* 
Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya (703) 386-1500 x9100 
CTO mahesh at aptela.com 
Aptela, Inc. http://www.aptela.com 
"Aptela: How Business Answers The Call" 
******************************************* 



-- 
******************************************* 
Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya (703) 386-1500 x9100 
CTO mahesh at aptela.com 
Aptela, Inc. http://www.aptela.com 
"Aptela: How Business Answers The Call" 
******************************************* 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20061216/878a40dd/attachment.htm>