RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for anINVITE ?

["Asheesh Joshi" <asjoshi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I was thinking on this problem. Shouldn't a UAS receiving a retransmitted
INVITE ignore the retransmission if it has already sent out a 200 OK for the
1st INVITE ? This seems to be the cause of my problem.  My UAC is sending
INVITE twice as the UAS is not responding ( even with a provisional
response ) to my first INVITE. Now when it sends the 200 OK for the 1st
INVITE, it receives a 2nd retransmitted INVITE and responds with 200 OK
again.    Is it because it thinks that the 1st 200 OK it sent was lost ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:00 AM
To: 'Asheesh Joshi'; 'resiprocate-devel'
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for
anINVITE ?

Just to claify - 200 retranmissions for Invites are not handled by the
transaction layer - they should be handled by dum.  : )

-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott
Godin
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:26 PM
To: 'Asheesh Joshi'; 'resiprocate-devel'
Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for
anINVITE ?

200 transmissions for Invites only are supposed to be passed to the UAC
layer and are not handled by the stack.  There is stuff in 3261 about this.

Eitherway - I just submitted a bug fix for this problem earlier this week.
Can you please try using the latest SVN head?

Thanks,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Asheesh
Joshi
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:34 PM
To: resiprocate-devel
Subject: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE
?

Hi,

        I am facing a problem in resip. The DUM gives me a callback even for
a retransmission of 200 OK for an INVITE.
Is it that I have to take care of checking the Cseq in my application and
ignore it ?  Shouldn't the Transaction layer itself Reject such a
retransmitted 200 OK and not give a callback ?

        Actually I don't see this thing mentioned in the RFC 3261 either!
Is
this a bug in RFC ?

- Regards
Asheesh

-----Original Message-----
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of maodonghu
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:54 AM
To: resiprocate-devel
Subject: [reSIProcate] (no subject)

Hi,

I am a fresh man on reSIProcate, now I encounter a problem in my program.
if the program written like this, it is good for work:

//---------------------------------------------------
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
        //Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Stack, argv[0]);

        SipStack sip_stack;
        DialogUsageManager* dum = new DialogUsageManager( sip_stack );
        dum->addTransport( UDP, 12345 );


but if written like this, it will throw a exception:

//----------------------------------------------------
SipStack sip_stack;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
        //Log::initialize(Log::Cout, Log::Stack, argv[0]);


        DialogUsageManager* dum = new DialogUsageManager( sip_stack );
        dum->addTransport( UDP, 12345 );
        ...

I dont know why the sip_stack must be local ?

        maodonghu
        hhmmdd@xxxxxxx
          2005-11-03

_______________________________________________
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