[SR-Users] Does forking impact max_inv_lifetime?

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

I haven't used the feature myself (nor implemented it), but it is what I
expect. Maybe you can run in debug mode and map the logs with the code
to see what happens.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 22/01/15 00:04, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Will failure_route will be called immediately when the transaction expires? I tried a call where max_inv_lifetime was set at 50000 ms and fr_inv_timer at 40000 ms. Several new branches were attempted, each sending some 183s or 180s, and Kamailio did not CANCEL the last pending branch until 83 sec into the call. Is there something I'm missing about how to handle the transaction expiration in real time?
>
> --
> Sent from my BlackBerry. Please excuse errors and brevity.
>   Original Message  
> From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 5:59 PM
> To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> Reply To: miconda at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Does forking impact max_inv_lifetime?
>
> Hello,
>
> somehow your emails are a bit confusing, in first one you say that you
> cannot get max_inv_lifetime as per transaction, being reset by a new
> branch, is that still true?
>
> The failure route should be called when the transaction is expired.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 21/01/15 18:16, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> Maybe I should ask this question another way that is more applicable
>> to my end-goal:
>>
>> What exactly happens when max_inv_lifetime is reached without a final
>> response? Is a failure_route invoked? If so, is the appropriate means
>> of dealing with this to check t_is_expired() and handle it at that level?
>>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda