quite quite positive.
the reason i am so certain is that there is only *one* place in my entire config file that i actually do a t_relay() (or equivalent).  I isolated all the code into route[1], to ease maintainability of my (admittedly complex) config file.

In route[1], the relevant section is pretty damn close to

if (!t_relay()) {
   if (!is_method("ACK")) {
      sl_reply_error();
   }
}

fwiw, its 1.1.0 (latest cvs version thereof)

cheers

----- Original Message -----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan@voice-system.ro>
To: mahesh@aptela.com
Cc: Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>, users <users@openser.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:39:04 PM GMT-0600
Subject: Re: [Users] Duplicate INVITEs - t_lookup_request and t_check_trans

Hi Mahesh,

I do not think you need t_check_tran() as t_relay() automatically
absorbs the retransmissions.

are you sure you are not calling t_relay() twice for the same requests?
or calling a tm function (t_newtran) before the t_relay ??

regards,
bogdan


Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya wrote:

>Well, i read the documentation again, and found t_lookup_request, and t_check_trans.
>Question 1 - t_lookup_request() creates the transaction if it doesn't exist, correct?  However, t_check_trans only checks to see if the transaction already exists, correct?
>
>Question 2 - Assuming that t_check_trans only checks to see if the transaction already exists, then is the following correct?
>
>Currently I do the following (after stripping out a bunch of stuff)
>
>if (!t_relay()) {
>   if (!is_method("ACK")) {
>      sl_reply_error();
>   }
>}
>
>should this, instead, actually look like the following?
>if (is_method("INVITE")) {
>   if (if !t_check_tran()) {
>      t_relay();
>   }
>} else if (!is_method("ACK")) {
>   sl_reply_error();
>}
>
>
>      
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>
>To: mahesh@aptela.com
>Cc: users <users@openser.org>
>Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:06:01 AM GMT-0600
>Subject: Re: [Users] Duplicate INVITEs
>
>Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya wrote:
>  
>
>>We're seeing sporadic situations where fones
>>a) send an INVITE
>>b) ignore the 100-Trying response, and instead
>>c) send another INVITE with the same sequence number.
>>
>>The question is, What should happen here?
>>    
>>
>
>If the message is completely identical then it is a retransmission.
>Retransmissions should be detected by tm module (e.g. t_relay()) and
>absorbed,
>
>regards
>klaus
>
>
>  
>
>>Currently, we send back a 500 response (server error).
>>Is this correct? (i think not, cause it invariably causes the fone to go fast busy).
>>Is this some other response that should occur?
>>
>>poring over 3261 resulted in a headache, and no additional clarity...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Users mailing list
>>Users@openser.org
>>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>



--
*******************************************
Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya      (703) 386-1500 x9100
CTO                                         mahesh@aptela.com
Aptela, Inc.                               http://www.aptela.com
"Aptela: How Business Answers The Call"
*******************************************