Thank you Julien for digging into it. If its affects not the default match mode - this sounds indeed like the reason that it was not found earlier.
Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://skalatan.de/services ________________________________ Von: sr-users <sr-users-boun...@lists.kamailio.org> im Auftrag von Julien Chavanton <jchavan...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Samstag, 26. September 2020, 04:17 An: Daniel-Constantin Mierla Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Betreff: Re: [SR-Users] Dialog - timeout for dlg with CallID 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 <jchavan...@gmail.com<mailto:jchavan...@gmail.com>> wrote: 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][1] state not changed >>> call-id[562419_125824138_2072238224] to-tag[<sip:+14019991...@anon.com<mailto:sip%3a%2b14019991...@anon.com>>;tag=gK02b68836] 2: 2020-09-25T16:30:16.896: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1440]: dlg_onroute(): [ACK] state not changed old[5]new[5] ... 3: 2020-09-25T16:32:22.674: dialog [dlg_hash.c:247]: dlg_clean_run(): dialog disconnection no-ACK call-id[562419_125824138_2072238224][1601051416]<[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 old[3]new[4], I wonder how it could possibly be state old[5]new[5]) 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.
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
