[SR-Users] Dialog - timeout for dlg with CallID
jchavanton at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 03:20:24 CEST 2020
This problem may not affect all the match mode, not sure as I did not
test/the default dlg_match_mode.
This could be the reason why it was not detected before.
Anyhow, the fix I have in mind may prevent several pitfalls, in case
there was more than one problem, lets see if my assumption is correct.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:15 PM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
> It seems I found the problem and I have a fix.
> The root cause is probably that the locally generated 408 is not updating
> the dialog to-tag.
> However, always checking for a to-tag match, before a non to-tag match
> will fix any such issue.
> I will prepare a merge request on Monday to start discussing the option
> always matching to-tag first.
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:27 AM Julien Chavanton <jchavanton at gmail.com>
>> I did catch the logs, and after looking at the trace, it seems like
>> dialog mismatch with a serial forking scenario :
>> - log line 3 is telling us that a NO-ACK disconnection should be triggered
>> - log line 1-2 is telling us what happened when the ACK was received in
>> dlg_onroute(), oddly enough state 5 was old and new, could it be a
>> mismatch/confusio with the previous dialog, looking in this direction ...
>> 1: 2020-09-25T16:30:16.896: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1273]:
>> extra_ack_debug_info(): [ACK] state not changed >>>
>> call-id[562419_125824138_2072238224] to-tag[<sip:+14019991904 at anon.com
>> 2: 2020-09-25T16:30:16.896: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1440]: dlg_onroute():
>> [ACK] state not changed oldnew
>> 3: 2020-09-25T16:32:22.674: dialog [dlg_hash.c:247]: dlg_clean_run():
>> dialog disconnection no-ACK
>> call-id[562419_125824138_2072238224]<[1601051542 - 60]
>> After looking at the pcap trace, call-id 562419_125824138_2072238224 was
>> involved in serial forking :
>> call attempt #1
>> X >> INVITE >> Y // no to-tag
>> X << 100
>> X << 408 // to-tag=594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-59edef02
>> (locally generated)
>> X >> ACK // to-tag=594d50c3218065a60bb91fd47a70fbc1-59edef02
>> call attempt #2
>> X >> INVITE >> Z // no to-tag
>> X << 100
>> X << 200 << Z // to-tag=gK02b68836
>> X >> ACK >> Z // to-tag=gK02b68836 (Should be state oldnew, I
>> wonder how it could possibly be state oldnew)
>> I did look at several occurrences and there is always a locally generated
>> 408/to-tag before, seems like I have a good lead to investigate further.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sr-users