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

[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