#242: -s (several) option doesn't work
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: chris-mac | Owner: vadim
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: QuteCom 2.2-RC4
Component: phapi | Version: 2.2
Resolution: | Keywords:
Field_os: all |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Old description:
> When QuteCom is started with -s (several) switch, all instances try to
> bind to the same SIP port number. This results in all but the first
> instance can't connect, and report the following error to the console:
>
> (error) 14:01:46 [PhApi] : osip:
> /home/chris/workspace/app/qutecom-2.2-r639/wifo/eXosip/src/eXosip.c:580:
> eXosip: TCP transport_listen failed!
> (error) 14:01:46 [PhApi] : eXosip_init failed
New description:
When QuteCom is started with -s (several) switch, all instances try to
bind to the same SIP port number. This results in all but the first
instance can't connect, and report the following error to the console:
(error) 14:01:46 [PhApi] : osip:
qutecom-2.2-r639/wifo/eXosip/src/eXosip.c:580: eXosip: TCP
transport_listen failed!
(error) 14:01:46 [PhApi] : eXosip_init failed
--
Comment(by chris-mac):
With this patch it is possible to start two instances of QuteCom, but both
are binding to the same port number??? See netstat output below:
{{{
r...@dom:~# netstat -ltpeu --numeric-hosts --numeric-ports | grep qutecom
tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:25902 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN
chris 189954 3886/qutecom
udp 0 0 192.168.1.65:5060 0.0.0.0:*
john 225246 3957/qutecom
udp 0 0 192.168.1.65:5060 0.0.0.0:*
chris 219291 3886/qutecom
}}}
BTW: I have never seen two different processes (owned by different users)
binding to the same port before :)
Because of that all incoming SIP messages are routed to both instances!
Which results in a lot of errors like:
{{{
(error) 08:21:27 [PhApi] : osip:
/home/chris/workspace/app/temp/qutecom-2.2-r640/wifo/eXosip/src/udp.c:2527:
no matching SIP account found
}}}
Another issue is that both instances try to bind port 25902 for
!CommandServer (and only first one succeeds).
'''Suggested solution''': check if the port we want to bind is free, and
if it is not increment port number by one (trying say 50 ports). Pseudo
code:
{{{
int cmd_server_port = 0;
while (int i = 25902; i <= (25902 + 50); i++)
{
if (isCmdServerPortFree(i) == true)
{
cmd_server_port = i;
break;
}
}
if (cmd_server_port == 0)
{
throw error "Failed to bind Command server port";
}
int sip_port = 0;
for (int i = 5060; i <= (5060 + 50); i++)
{
if (isSipPortFree(i) == true)
{
sip_port = i;
break;
}
}
if (sip_port == 0)
{
throw error "Failed to bind SIP port";
}
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.qutecom.org/ticket/242#comment:2>
QuteCom <http://trac.qutecom.org>
_______________________________________________
QuteCom-dev mailing list
QuteCom-dev@lists.qutecom.org
http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
