Salut Bogdan,
Thank you for your response.
I think the reply is correct, because in the log file I can see:
2007-10-15 06:28:48.545|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n
2007-10-15 06:28:48.545|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:28:48.546|t_hooks.c:203|run_trans_callbacks|DBG:
trans=0xb5e98bd8, callback type 256, id 0 entered\n
2007-10-15 06:28:52.754|timer.c:434|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : removing
0xb5e98bd8 from table \n
2007-10-15 06:28:52.754|timer.c:714|remove_timer_unsafe|DEBUG: unlinking timer:
tl=0xb5e98d54, timeout=364, group=0\n
2007-10-15 06:28:52.753|timer.c:239|delete_cell|DEBUG: delete transaction
0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:28:52.753|timer.c:443|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : done\n
2007-10-15 06:29:15.378|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n
2007-10-15 06:29:15.378|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:29:15.378|t_hooks.c:203|run_trans_callbacks|DBG:
trans=0xb5e98bd8, callback type 256, id 0 entered\n
2007-10-15 06:29:19.871|timer.c:434|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : removing
0xb5e98bd8 from table \n
2007-10-15 06:29:19.871|timer.c:714|remove_timer_unsafe|DEBUG: unlinking timer:
tl=0xb5e98d54, timeout=391, group=0\n
2007-10-15 06:29:19.871|timer.c:239|delete_cell|DEBUG: delete transaction
0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:29:19.871|timer.c:443|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : done\n
2007-10-15 06:29:21.853|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n [22569]
2007-10-15 06:29:21.853|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98bd8\n
[22569]
2007-10-15 06:29:25.894|timer.c:434|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : removing
0xb5e98bd8 from table \n
2007-10-15 06:29:25.894|timer.c:714|remove_timer_unsafe|DEBUG: unlinking timer:
tl=0xb5e98d54, timeout=397, group=0\n
2007-10-15 06:29:25.894|timer.c:239|delete_cell|DEBUG: delete transaction
0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:29:25.894|timer.c:443|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : done\n
2007-10-15 06:29:50.049|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n
2007-10-15 06:29:50.049|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:29:50.051|t_hooks.c:203|run_trans_callbacks|DBG:
trans=0xb5e98bd8, callback type 256, id 0 entered\n
2007-10-15 06:29:55.014|timer.c:434|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : removing
0xb5e98bd8 from table \n
2007-10-15 06:29:55.014|timer.c:714|remove_timer_unsafe|DEBUG: unlinking timer:
tl=0xb5e98d54, timeout=425, group=0\n
2007-10-15 06:29:55.014|timer.c:239|delete_cell|DEBUG: delete transaction
0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:29:55.014|timer.c:443|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : done\n
2007-10-15 06:31:45.071|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n
2007-10-15 06:31:45.071|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:31:45.071|t_hooks.c:203|run_trans_callbacks|DBG:
trans=0xb5e98bd8, callback type 256, id 0 entered\n
2007-10-15 06:31:49.834|timer.c:434|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : removing
0xb5e98bd8 from table \n
2007-10-15 06:31:49.834|timer.c:714|remove_timer_unsafe|DEBUG: unlinking timer:
tl=0xb5e98d54, timeout=540, group=0\n
2007-10-15 06:31:49.834|timer.c:239|delete_cell|DEBUG: delete transaction
0xb5e98bd8\n
2007-10-15 06:31:49.834|timer.c:443|wait_handler|DEBUG: wait_handler : done\n
Maybe I don't understand it correctly? It's about T=0xb5e98bd8. It gets
matched, removed, deleted. Many times.
The situation was reproduced using 2 different clients: sipp and a proprietary
client (using two opensource libraries: osip and exosip).
What do you think?
Thanks,
Sica.
----- Original Message ----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Vasile Zaharia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:35:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Users] retransmissions after final response
Salut Sica,
The problem may reside in two places:
1) the reply is not correct and the client is not able to match it
to the sent request (and keeps retransmitting)
2) the client is not able to match (due whatever other bugs) the
reply.
Salutari,
Bogdan
Vasile Zaharia wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I'm developing a Presence AS OpenSER module (derived from the OpenSER
Presence module)
> and, from time to time, it happens the next situation:
> - AS sends a NOTIFY message
> - the client receives the NOTIFY and responds with 200 OK
> - AS receives 200 OK response, but it starts to retransmit the
original NOTIFY and it
> retransmits it until it gets back a 408 Request timeout.
>
> Please note that I use "tm" module for sending SIP messages, so I
don't
> handle retransmissions explicitly in my module.
> Also, note that it does not happen all the time, but from time to
time.
>
> Does anyone else met a similar situation?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sica.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
