Woof! On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:05:37 -0400, Dale Worley <[email protected]> wrote:
> The behavior you are seeing is the currently intended behavior. There > was extensive discussion about the retry strategy at the time it was > revised, so it is probably more sensible than it first appears. Off the > top of my head, the fact that a sender hasn't seen a 100 for a request > doesn't mean that the TCP connection has failed -- e.g., the other end > might be a stateless proxy that is sending the request on via UDP. > > In any case, I would track down the design discussion of the current > behavior before considering changing it. What about the not closing the TCP/IP connection after a timeout, and then re-using it? That's the part I'm concerned with. A new connection could end up working (due to lots of reasons, such as NAT screwups, DNS round robin picking a different machine, etc.), while re-using one that has failed in the past seems like a good chance of failure in the future. --Woof! _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
