[SR-Users] [Sems] Solutions to missing BYEs, accounting for them
Stefan Sayer
stefan.sayer at googlemail.com
Fri Apr 23 20:55:34 CEST 2010
Hi,
in r1821 you can find my first shot at this scenario, a b2bua which
enables SST on both sides, and does the SDP ping pong as below.
I am sure that there are many cases which are not handled properly,
for example, if we have started one INVITE ping-pong from the B2B,
then we should not accept re-INVITE from the ends, but refuse them
with 491; atm I think the re-INVITE would just get relayed and two
INVITE transactions would be running simultaneously.
Another issue is what to do when re-INVITE fails, I think that this is
not handled properly at the moment (it is just ignored, but should
probably tear down both calls - that's the thing for, I guess).
A third todo is to pass the headers through. Possibly, this should be
implemented with a header filter or the like.
Regards
Stefan
Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Yes, it is complex if the B2BUA does not have a media relay ( in which
> case providing the SDP (at least the port information) itself).
>
> Am 22.04.2010 16:01, schrieb Stefan Sayer:
>>
>
>> or, other possibility, empty reinvite:
>> A b2b B
>> |---INVITE / SDPa-->| |
>> | |---INVITE / SDPa-->|
>> | | |
>> | |<-- OK/SDPb--------|
>> | |--- ACK ---------->|
>> |<-- OK/SDPb--------| |
>> |--- ACK ---------->| |
>> | | |
>> ... sst timer expires ...
>> | | |
>> |<--INVITE | |
>> | | |
>> |--- OK/SDPc------->| |
>> now what? ignore that, or do
>>
>> | |---INVITE / SDPc-->|
>> | |<-- OK/SDPd--------|
>
> This is the proper approach.
>
>> one more ping-pong?
>
> No.
>
> |<----ACK/SDPd------|----ACK----------->|
>
> No more ping-pongs needed.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
--
Stefan Sayer
VoIP Services Consulting and Development
Warschauer Str. 24
10243 Berlin
tel:+491621366449
sip:sayer at iptel.org
email/xmpp:stefan.sayer at gmail.com
More information about the sr-users
mailing list