Iñaki,Thanks for clearing that up.. it's quite helpful understanding that.. One question tho. I've seen opensips at times totally ignore a message as well.. Is there any time that *should* happen?
-Brett On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote: > > El Martes, 19 de Mayo de 2009, Brett Nemeroff escribió: > > So my question is, what is opensips's behavior with these kinds of > > transactions. > > > I don't understand when opensips decides to retransmit a > > 200OK (without re-relaying the BYE), versus a 481 Transaction Does not > > Exist, versus completely ignoring the packet. > > This is the correct behaviour of a transaction stateful proxy: > - Opensips receives the BYE and relays it sucesfully (since it receives 200 > from downstream). > - Opensips forwards the 200 to the broken UA who "doesn't" understand it (why? > no idea). > - So the broken UA re-sends the BYE. > - Opensips receives it again and it matches the previous transaction (which > remains in memory for 32 seconds). It could occur that the first 200 from > OpenSIPS to the UA is lost in the network so OpenSIPS MUST be ready to receive > a BYE retransmission. > - After 32 seconds the transactions end so next BYE would be relayed by > OpenSIPS and would get 481 from the other endpoint. > > > > I was guessing the > > transaction stays in memory after it's been destroyed just to absorb > > retransmissions. If that's the case, would i expect to see a 481 once that > > timer expires for the same retransmitted BYE? > > Yes, but the 481 will be replied by the other endpoint. > > > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
