Gee, maybe I'm missing something, but the spec does not say that. The RFC actually says that
when you send a final response, you are required to store that final response for 64*T1 seconds
and retransmit the final response each time you receive the retransmitted request. (T1 = 500ms)
Otherwise, you would be screwed if you you one and only final response was lost in transit. :)


Jiri Kuthan wrote:

Andres,

the normative reference for abrorbing retranmissions is in RFC3261 --
INFO/RFC refers to it by telling "all transaction handling is like
for BYE requests". This is the specific piece of text from RFC3261
which explains why not absorbing retransmissions breaks the spec.

Cheeers, -jiri

17.2.2 Non-INVITE Server Transaction
...
Once in the "Trying" state, any further request
  retransmissions are discarded. ...

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Andres wrote:



Hi Jiri,

I certainly welcome and applaud your comments and suggestions.  But I
could not continue to push this issue as an asterisk "bug" since the RFC
did not back me up.  Absorbing these SIP INFO retransmissions is more
like a common sense thing/feature that should be implemented in asterisk
rather than an RFC violation, since the RFC is quite vague.  If anybody
has the knowledge to implement this feature I can certainly help test it.

Regards,
Andres.

Jiri Kuthan wrote:



Andres,

thanks for your reply. I beg to disagree, here are the arguments:
1) Having INFO is imho a useful thing: it allows elements out of the
 media path to control DTMF-based service logic. Otherwise, you
 will end up processing media which affects bandwidth and latency
 noticably and does not scale.
2) Apart from the out-of-order argument, reprocessing retransmissions
 is a bug worth fixing. It is responsibility of transaction layer
 to absorb UDP retransmissions and never let app see them.
 (Similarly like TCP does not pass retranmissions to apps.) I think
 there are more cases for proper transaction processing other than just
 DTMF/INFO.
3) out-of-order delivery may or may not be an issue: gnerally, one would
 need to mainain a kind of playout buffer like for RTP. O-o-o delivery
 does not  matter to me personaly since I send DTMF/INFO in stop-and-go mode.
 (BTW, I think the text in the RFC is not entirely correct, re-INIVITE
  should not cause CSeq gaps. Nevertheless, the RFC does not prevent
  anybody from implementing an "INFO playout buffer").

-jiri

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andres wrote:





Hi Jiri,

Been there.  We switched from INFO to RFC2833 for this same reason.
Take a look at:
http://bugs.digium.com/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001033

Not only retransmissions are affected but out of order packets too.
This behaviour can be partly blamed on the RFC:

"In addition, the INFO method does not define additional mechanisms
for ensuring in-order delivery. While the CSeq header will be
incremented upon the transmission of new INFO messages, this should
not be used to determine the sequence of INFO information. This is
due to the fact that there could be gaps in the INFO message CSeq
count caused by a user agent sending re-INVITES or other SIP
messages. "

Regards,
Andres



Jiri Kuthan wrote:





I'm wondering whether people know if there could be a problem
with * receiving retransmissions of INFO/DTMF requests.

I'm trying to play DTMF via INFO to *. If it takes a 200 reply too
long to come back, the request is retransmitted. Whenever this
happens, the IVR down in PSTN reports that the number sequence
is incorrect.

This makes me guess that * turns INFO retransmissions into new
DTMF digits on the PSTN part.

Does anybody have the same experience? Is it a known problem?
Are there any patches?

Thanks,

-jiri

--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users







--
Andres
Network Admin
http://www.telesip.net


_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users





_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers





--
Andres
Network Admin
http://www.telesip.net


_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users



_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users



_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Reply via email to