[SR-Users] doubt using sip tcp creating new transaction

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Welcome!

On the other hand, I don't recall any significant change on this part of
code between 4.2 and current devel (4.4), but I didn't look at the
commit history right now ...

Cheers,
Daniel

On 27/01/16 15:00, david wrote:
> ok thanks Daniel
>
> i was quite confused by seeing different things on different versions
> (which had sligthly configuration differences) and i though i was
> doing something wrong somewhere
>
> best regards
> david
>
>
> El mié, 27-01-2016 a las 14:55 +0100, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
>> Hello,
>>
>> yes, quick connect message is ok. It is an INFO level, messages to
>> worry about start at level WARNING, ERROR or lower.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 27/01/16 12:41, david wrote:
>>
>>> hello Daniel
>>>
>>> thanks  for the explanation.
>>> then i understand the "quick connect" message is also normal? seen
>>> in version 4.2.2 or 4.4?
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> david
>>>
>>>
>>> El mar, 26-01-2016 a las 12:45 +0100, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> the pending write message is due to asynchronous tcp --
>>>> practically, even if the tcp connection is not ready, the SIP
>>>> routing process is not blocked.
>>>>
>>>> If the connection is found or the connection was setup quickly,
>>>> then is not a risk of blocking and the message is sent immediately.
>>>>
>>>> I guess all went ok with sip routing, right?
>>>>
>>>> Also, tcp is separate layer from sip transactions, so no relation
>>>> between them here, probably you will get the same by using the
>>>> forward*() functions, which don't create sip transactions.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On 25/01/16 15:28, david escartin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hello all
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm facing some weird log from kamailio (i think they are weird)
>>>>> when using sip tcp in the caller side and udp in the callee side.
>>>>>
>>>>> seems like the tcp socket is active in the caller side and the
>>>>> call is connected, since the invite transaction completes.
>>>>> After that, if we receive an in-dialog request from the callee
>>>>> side, the kamailio doesnt find the tcp connection created and it
>>>>> has to create again the socket by SYN procedure for the other conn
>>>>> way.
>>>>> up to this point i think it's everything correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> *A----the thing i dont understand, is that checking version 4.2.6,
>>>>> the logs i have when the request in-dialog comes from UAS, are
>>>>> like these*
>>>>>
>>>>> 5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1820]: tcp_send(): tcp_send: no
>>>>> open tcp connection found, opening new one
>>>>> 5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [ip_addr.c:243]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new:
>>>>> new tcp connection: 79.170.68.171
>>>>> 5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1073]: tcpconn_new():
>>>>> tcpconn_new: on port 5063, type 2
>>>>> 5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1382]: tcpconn_add():
>>>>> tcpconn_add: hashes: 1522:2178:0, 4
>>>>> *5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:2699]: tcpconn_1st_send():
>>>>> pending write on new connection 0x7fac1168f028  (-1/968 bytes
>>>>> written)*
>>>>> 5(2979) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:395]: t_relay_to(): SER: new
>>>>> transaction fwd'ed
>>>>>
>>>>> *B----while when using 4.2.2 or 4.4*
>>>>> 1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1818]: tcp_send(): tcp_send: no
>>>>> open tcp connection found, opening new one
>>>>> 1(791) DEBUG: <core> [ip_addr.c:243]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new
>>>>> tcp connection: 79.170.68.171
>>>>> 1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1073]: tcpconn_new():
>>>>> tcpconn_new: on port 5063, type 2
>>>>> 1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1382]: tcpconn_add():
>>>>> tcpconn_add: hashes: 1522:3421:0, 4
>>>>> *1(791) INFO: <core> [tcp_main.c:2753]: tcpconn_1st_send(): quick
>>>>> connect for 0x7f880540f758*
>>>>> 1(791) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:394]: t_relay_to(): SER: new
>>>>> transaction fwd'ed
>>>>>
>>>>> the difference between A and B is that in B i use dialog flags to
>>>>> do the t_relay_to_tcp for the indialog requests (and not in A),
>>>>> and in A i use the advertised IP in the listen addresses since
>>>>> kamailio is behind a NAT, while B machine scenario has public IPs.
>>>>> could those 2 things explain the ebhaviour difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> is there anything abnormal in the case B?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks a lot and regards
>>>>> david escartin
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
>>>>> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
>>>>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>> Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
>>>> http://miconda.eu
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>> Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
>> http://miconda.eu
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
http://miconda.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20160127/91873085/attachment.html>