[dlg_hash.c:591]: bogus event 6 in state 1 for dlg 0xa7e979b8
[1648:1273002173] with clid
'789390150-37017968-1276191635112(a)10.16.10.152' and tags
'3805046041-37017968-1276191635112' ''
But tomorrow I will test the setting - as recommended by you - to
reduce kamailio to a single worker and check if the problem will
keep repreduceable.
Regards,
Klaus Feichtinger
Bogus event 6 in state 2 means ACK received in
early state. This
is a little bit bizarre, because it seems that the dialog did
not see the 200ok passing by. Try to use a single worker
(children=1) and see if you can reproduce the problem. Also,
check that the 200ok is really going through the proxy.
Regards, Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Klaus Feichtinger
<klaus.feichtinger(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> under special circumstances I have a problem with the DIALOG
> module of
SIP-Router/Kamailio version 3.0.2. The dialog module is used in
combination with presence, presence_xml, pua, pua_usrloc and
pua_dialoginfo modules + db_mysql modules. The db_mode is set to
"write_through", because of redundancy requirements.
>
> From my point of view this problem has something to do with
> timing in
general. E.g. a so called "data call" has a duration of
about 50 ms
only; INVITE....BYE). That problem occurs on this short calls only.
Because of the problems in the dialog state machine, NOTIFY
messages are incorrect. Even when the call is already finished, the
NOTIFY message includes the state "confirmed" and causes a wrong
status indication....
>
> The detailed error message can be seen here: "Jun 9 16:00:39
> debian /usr/sbin/kamailio[14992]: CRITICAL: dialog
[dlg_hash.c:591]: bogus
event 6 in state 2 for dlg [dialog-ID] with
clid [Call-ID] and tags '1299370188-28358304-1276092068837' ''"
>
>
> I found in old mails of the developer list another error that
> looked
nearly the same, but it differed in the event and state of the
dialog state machine (the thread can be found under the link
http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@lists.kamailio.org/msg03234.html).
That bug should - according the information that I've found in the
list - be solved. Therefore I will ask you: is the error as
displayed above another well known error / bug, which (maybe)
should already be solved? Is it a new bug?
Thanks for any information.
regards,
Klaus Feichtinger
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing
list sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing
list sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev