Hello
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:07:32 +0200
Raphael Coeffic <[email protected]> wrote:
On 18.10.10 11:11, Stefan Sayer wrote:
Антон Загорский wrote:
Hello Stefan.
Yes. You will need a new local tag and session id
I don't change local tag and session id and just call
sendInvite again. And this work fine.
When will my algorithm fails?
potentially this does not work: if any proxy on the way
or the UAS still has not timed out the dialog (identified
by tag/callid), it will think that the new INVITE belings
to the old dialog. Also, this may break your billing
system if there is any.
AmSipDialog will automatically increase the cseq by one,
and a new via-branch will be created anyway. Both cseq
and via-branch are part of the transaction matching,
which means that the second INVITE would not match the
first one. In my opinion, it will not even match an
existing dialog, as the dialog would rather have been
killed/never created after the UAS sent an error back.
The only issue is the To-tag. the 'uac_auth' module
implements a similar use case (see UACAuth.cpp:165 to
176).
If we are talking entire SIP then SIP session indentifies
by triple Call-ID, To-Tag, From-Tag.
1. Why does SEMS identify SIP session be means of other
parameters?
2. UACAuth.cpp just clears From-Tag. sendRequest(..)
doesn't populate it with new value. Is it right?
3. Can I just generate new Call-ID and change it directly?
Cheers
Raphael.
_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
