13 Apr
2016
13 Apr
'16
12:48 p.m.
On 12/04/16 17:33, Marrold wrote:
Hi,
You can also run with debug=3 in kamailio config to get more log
messages in syslog. If there are too many, then use debugger module and
set debug level to 3 only for tm module, then you should see if tm is
matching the 200ok to a transaction.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com
>On 06/04/16 01:57, Marrold wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> I can confirm that t_any_timeout(), and t_branch_timeout() return true
> when these un-ACKd transactions occur.
by un-ACKed, do you mean they didn't receive
any response or they didn't
receive the ACK following a response to an INVITE?
I mean specifically the response to an INVITE was not ACK'd
> I've been doing some experimentation with
t_any_timeout()
and t_branch_timeout(), and I've observed they return true if
either
the initial invite receives no response, or if the 200 OK >> is not
acknowledged by the UAC.
> Is there any way of differentiating between
these scenarios?
If Kamailio matches the 200ok for transaction,
then it should not give true for a timeout
check. But maybe there is a mismatch
also in kamailio if the 200ok is
sent to caller but it is no > ACK sent back. In such case, a sip
network trace will be useful to investigate what happens there.
In this scenario a 200ok is sent to the caller, but no ACK is sent
back. This appears to return true for timeout checks. I will grab a
SIP trace.
As a side note / update I figure I can potentially add a flag / AVP
when a response and / or ACK is received and figure out the cause of
the timeout from there.