< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index  

RE: [reSIProcate] UdpTransport problem


I'm not sure how this checkin could be causing the problem. This looks like
a simple memory leak fix. The only difference is that the retranmission is
deleted since it is not handed up to the TU.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott
> Godin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:51 AM
> To: 'Alan Hawrylyshen'; sharon paisner
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] UdpTransport problem
>
>
> I haven't really looking into it much - but I wonder if the
> following recent
> change could be causing the problem:
>
> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg01199.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Hawrylyshen [mailto:alan@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:31 PM
> To: sharon paisner
> Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] UdpTransport problem
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2004, at 11:14, sharon paisner wrote:
>
> > I believe I've found the problem...
> > [snip]
> > If we receive a 200, and the state is "completed", we don't pass the
> > message along to the TU... is this the correct behavior? I would think
> > even 200s completing a transaction should be passed up to the UA.
> >
> > --Sharon
> >
> >
>
>
> Sharon;
>
> The 1st 200 will arrive when the TransactionState is NOT in completed.
> This will result in the sendToTU() call. Subsequent 200s will arrive in
> the Completed state and be suppressed by the code you quote. The intent
> of this code is to catch retransmissions at the Transaction Level. This
> code appears to work for us, our product has been using the UDP
> transport and doing both Invite and Non-Invite transactions for over a
> year using this codebase.
>
> It is possible that your SIP messages are not well formed. Do they have
> strict CRLF at the end of each line and a CRLFCRLF pair at the end of
> the headers? This is important.
>
>
> Alan Hawrylyshen
> Jasomi Networks Inc.
> http://jasomi.com/
> a l a n a t j a s o m i d o t c o m
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>