3 Mar
2008
3 Mar
'08
9:38 p.m.
At 20:17 03/03/2008, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
Yes -- actually I think it would be a clean step to separaate failure_route
in failure_route handling negative replies and timeout_route. (cc-ing serdev
thus too). Reseting the timer from there to comply to RFC3261 or executing
some service (all kinds of haunting) or going stateless if desirable and
possible would be few examples of meaningful actions to be done from there.
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
Another workaround would be a timeout_route At 12:44 29/02/2008, Klaus Darilion wrote:
I think there is no easy way to solve this. A workaround would be to
increase the fr_inv_timer in the reply route (e.g. after getting a 183
response) - but I fear this would be difficult to implement.
regards
klaus I vote for "remove" and have it
"on" always.
I never saw a reason for this parameter
Maybe underdocumentation is the point why many folks seem to be excited
by removal :-)
Well -- with RFC2543 it could have been quite inconvenient for you to
figure out that after say 90 seconds of early media (say on my favorite
callee, German imigration office) you will be disconnected by a proxy
server while stil in hope someone would answer for you. This is
particularly annoying if the server in the path is playing a special
purpose role (such as load-balancer) and surprises rest of the world
with a CANCEL. this has been a real trouble in the field.
This obstacle should be in theory removed in RFC3261 which allows 18x
to extend the proxy server timer.
(It goes back to the INVITE transaction as whole being misconcepted in
the SIP protocol, but that's frankly not worth fixing now.)
With that, my recommendation is to check behaviour of existing gateways
before doing changes. (otherwise noisy_timer is undoubtably a confusing
hack which if absent makes things simpler) and there the admin can
take a decision:
- drop the transaction, disable CANCEL generation and switch to stateless mode
- re-arm the timer and stay in statefull mode
Like this, the script has full control over the behavior of the server
and no under the hood tricky mechanism is involved.
I like explicit control in this case esthetically better too.
-jiri
BTW: I would love to see this implemented for dialog
timers :)
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1892203&gr…
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/