Hi,
>>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.