On 04 Feb 2014, at 08:52, dotnetdub dotnetdub@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Olle,
Just a quick update..
I've gone through this in detail and the issue is actually that asterisk sends an UPDATE with CSeq: 104 UPDATE
and when FS respond OK asterisk then sends its REINVITE with CSeq: 103 INVITE
As far as I can tell Freeswitch at this point is perfectly within its rights to send a 500 as the CSEQ is out of order.
Should I file a bug report on the asterisk tracker to get this fixed?
Feels like playing ping pong here :-)
Yes, Asterisk is misbehaving if we are doing that. Check first in the asterisk console that this is really the case, so it's not a late retransmit you are seeing.
If you can confirm this, please file a bug report.
Thanks /O
Regards Brian
On 31 January 2014 08:17, Olle E. Johansson oej@edvina.net wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 23:23, dotnetdub dotnetdub@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry to drag up a very old thread - we are seeing this also with asterisk kamailio and FS and I have tried lots of different combinations on both asterisk and FS to make it go away without success.. Did you ever come up with something better than the usleep ?
If freeswitch believes it already has an open INVITE transaction it should not respond with 500, it should respond with 491 request pending. In that case Asterisk will back off and retry.
Please check with the FreeSwitch people and file a bug report so that they can fix this issue. That's the long term solution, all the rest is just quick and dirty fixes. Seems like if this problem is still around, no one filed a bug report.
/O
Many Thanks
On 3 June 2013 20:23, David K kamailio.org@spam.lublink.net wrote:
Hello all,
So I have three machines, we don't care about audio for this problem, so everything I mention here is SIP related.
Freeswitch <--> Kamailio 3.3.2 <--> Asterisk
- Asterisk sends an INVITE to Freeswitch through the Kamailio proxy.
- Kamailio replies 100 Trying and forwards to Freeswitch
- Freeswitch replies 100 Trying
- Freeswitch replies 180 Ringing to Kamailio
- Kamailio routes the answer to Asterisk
- Freeswitch replies 200 OK to Kamailio
- Kamailio replies 200 OK to Asterisk
- Asterisk replies ACK to Kamailio
- Asterisk sends a re-INVITE to Freeswitch through Kamailio
- Kamailio routes the re-INVITE to freeswitch
- Kamailio routes the ACK to freeswitch.
- Freeswitch replies 500 Server error because it got a re-INVITE before
the ACK.
So, my problem is that Kamailio seems to process my re-INVITE more quickly than the ACK. So Freeswitch replies an error because it got the re-INVITE before the ACK.
So my "solution" is to add a usleep(20); for re-INVITEs on Kamailio, but I think this is a lousy solution.
Has anyone here had to deal with problems where Kamailio routes a re-INVITE faster than an ACK causing endpoints to return error messages? Has anyone had to deal with a similar issue?
Thanks,
David
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@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@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@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@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users