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.
Thanks for your assistance.