10 Jan
2013
10 Jan
'13
1:18 p.m.
10 jan 2013 kl. 11:50 skrev Richard Brady <rnbrady(a)gmail.com>om>:
Also can a flow fail temporarily?
For example a broadband router with a NAT timeout of 60 seconds and a UA with a
keep-alive interval of 120s. Would the flow succeed for the first 60 seconds after each
keep-alive and then fail for 60 seconds until the next keepalive?
Yes. That's a
misconfigured ua, isn't it... The UA will have to make sure to manage connections
properly so at least one of the two are always open and working...
Outbound is all about pushing responsiblity for the flows to the UA.
And would this generate a 430 or would it generate a different response code?
On the other hand this quote from the RFC makes it sounds like 430 represents a permanent
condition:
If the flow no longer exists, the proxy SHOULD
send a 430 (Flow Failed) response to the request.
Well, Outbound is very focused on TCP. It's alive or dead. It doesn't behave like
UDP.
/O
Richard
On 8 January 2013 09:55, Olle E Johanson <olle(a)ozone.webway.se> wrote:
8 jan 2013 kl. 10:43 skrev Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>om>:
Hi Juha,
A few months ago there was a discussion on IRC and the sr-dev list about what is needed
for outbound. This requirement to remove broken contacts was presented then by someone as
something that (although not explicit in the RFC) is needed.
Just a clarification:
Section 9.3 says that
"Bob's authoritative proxy first tries the flow to EP1,
but EP1 no longer has a flow to Bob, so it responds with a 430 (Flow
Failed) response. The proxy removes the stale registration and tries
the next binding for the same instance."
But it is not mentioned in the server handling section of the Outbound RFC.
/O
If a flow is broken, particularly one over TCP where the connection is established from
the UAC to the edge proxy, then it will never work again. As such it is extremely
wasteful to continue to try and use that flow (in preference to one that will work) for
each new dialog forming request. Further, as re-REGISTER times can be quite long, not
removing broken contacts could lead to a significant/growing number of dead contacts (all
of which will be tried for each new dialog forming request) in the location table.
There is an unregister() function in the registrar module, there are also the
reg_(fetch|free)_contacts() functions in the registrar module. None of these appear to do
quite what is required.
Peter
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 04:46 +0200, Juha Heinanen wrote:
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Peter Dunkley writes:
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev One requirement of an outbound capable registrar
is that if a flow fails
(edge proxy returns a 430) the registrar should realise that the flow is
now dead and remove that contact binding from its database so it is not
used again as well as trying the next contact. I can't see anything that
will do this? Is this missing?
peter,
i didn't find in rfc5626 a requirement that registrar should remove 430
flow contact, but, if there is such a requirement, in my opinion removal
should be done from failure route in the script by a function that
removes the contact.
a similar thing was discussed a while back (see below).
-- juha
From: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Sender: sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org
To: sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
Subject: [sr-dev] git:master: usrloc(k): keep time of the last keepalive for
natted UDP contacts
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:08:51 +0300
Klaus wrote:
Why only UDP? Are TCP contacts removed when the TCP connections is closed?
IMO there should also be a mechanism to remove ALL expired unresponsive
contacts.
how about the following for tcp contacts:
- set_forward_no_connect();
- if t_relay() fails because tcp connection does not exist,
unregister the AoR/contact
what would be needed is a find out that t_relay() failed due to
non-existing connection and a script function to do un-registration of
an AoR/contact.
perhaps both of these two things already exist?
-- juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev