[reSIProcate] RE: OnOffer callback for 200 OK !
The fix in SVN head addresses this too. As long as the 200 retransmission is
within 32s of us sending the Ack.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Asheesh Joshi [mailto:asjoshi@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:16 PM
> To: 'resiprocate-devel'; Scott Godin
> Subject: OnOffer callback for 200 OK !
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Sorry for being a pain. This is the last one.... Again releated to
> the same 200 OK problem.. but a different scenario...
> I am seeing the following behavior with my B2BUA and SIP Client.
>
> Here is the call flow... Callbacks of 200 OK are of interest. I
> have marked them in ( ) along with 200 Oks.
>
> SIP Client ( Resiprocate ) B2BUA ( Resiprocate )
>
> --------------------------INVITE Cseq=1-----------------------------
> ->
>
> <--------------------------180 Ringing Cseq=1-----------------------
>
> <---------------------------200 OK Cseq=1---------------------------
> -
> ( OnAnswer, OnConnect )
> -------------------------------ACK Cseq=1---------------------------
> -->
>
>
> Now I put the call on HOLD. ( sdp c= 0.0.0.0 )
>
> -------------------------------INVITE (hold) Cseq=2-----------------
> >
>
> <---------------------------200 OK Cseq=1----------------------------
> ( OnAnswer )
> -------------------------------ACK Cseq=1---------------------------
> -->
>
> <---------------------------200 OK Cseq=2----------------------------
> ( OnOffer )
>
> -------------------------------ACK Cseq=2---------------------------
> -->
>
>
>
> Here in the above trace, the bold sequence in RED is erroneous and
> should not be present. I am still investigating why is Sip client
> responding that way. However, after the 200 OK arrives with the correct
> Cseq=2, the DUM gives a callback OnOffer !
>
> My question is, is the stack confused because of sending of 200 OK
> Cseq=1 at the wrong time by Sip Client ?
>
> -best regards
> Asheesh.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:resiprocate-
> devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Asheesh Joshi
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:53 AM
> To: Scott Godin
> Cc: 'resiprocate-devel'
> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for
> anINVITE ?
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the quick response. If it s ok with you, can you please
> tell me what fix does this SVN address ? I mean, is that after using this
> new fix, one will not get a callback for a retransmit of 200 OK if the
> previous one has been handled? Or is there a different callback?
>
> -best regards
> Asheesh.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Godin [mailto:slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:56 AM
> To: 'Asheesh Joshi'; 'resiprocate-devel'
> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] How to handle retransmission of 200 OK for an
> INVITE ?
>
> 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