Re: [reSIProcate] Call teardown question

["Scott Godin" <slgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: [reSIProcate] Call teardown question

The line number you gave seems to indicate that you are on a "older" release of resip.  Accepting BYE requests in all InviteSession states was just recently fixed.

 

Scott

---

From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Kovar, William (Bill)
Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 1:28 PM
To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [reSIProcate] Call teardown question

I'm seeing some behavior in DUM that may or may not be correct.

The scenario is as follows:

                                         DUM
UA1----------------------------B2B-----------------------------UA2
                                         |
        <------- INVITE (No SDP) |
        180 -------------------->|
        200 (SDP)  ------------->|--------- INVITE (SDP) --------->
                                         |<----------------------------
180
                ......32 seconds...|
        BYE -------------------->|

In the scenario above, the BYE falls into the following code:

 ![2007-02-28 17:05:08.968] <2020:RESIP:DUM>  WARNING |
ClientInviteSession.cxx:852 | Don't know what this is : BYE
sip:56000@xxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 SIP/2.0

There is nothing done in ClientInviteSession::dispatchStart().

Is there an expectation that UA1 is supposed to send something like a
487?? My research shows that this BYE is legal in this scenario, which
leave me with an incomplete transaction.

If the BYE is not sent to onTerminated() how do I know to tear down the
call?


Bill Kovar


_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel