7 Sep
2006
7 Sep
'06
4:23 a.m.
Inline.
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
Many thanks for the reply, it is very useful but it contains bad news
because, if is it possible, it is important for me to preserve the
possibility to have the SIP proxy and SIP gateway in the same board.
Some other clarification:
1. I have two ethernet interfaces, if I give different IP address to
proxy and gateway, can I leave them on the same hardware?
Yes, the trick is to get the listen and alias directives correct in your
ser.cfg. You can run multiple servers or UAs on the same server, you
just have to make sure you don't have alias=myip in ser.cfg. This will
make SER believe messages for another server/UA is to be routed locally.
2. If I correctly understand the transaction creation in SER: SER
absorbs the retransmission only if already exists a transaction for
the original INVITE and SER creates a new transaction for an INVITE
only when is invoked the t_relay.
Yes, if not, SER will be transaction stateless and just happily forward
any message.
Consequently, If a retransmitted INVITE arrives when the elaboration
of the original INVITE is still in progress, SER repeats all the
elaboration also for the second INVITE.
I'm not sure what you mean by "elaboration", but if you mean that the
script will be executed for retransmitted INVITEs, then yes.
Do you confirm my description?
I have built a function that in heavy load traffic condition could be
slow (it does an external query, something similar to an exec) and it
is important that I don't invoke it twice for the same INVITE, so I
try to use t_newtran to anticipate the transaction creation before
invoking this function.
However, as first step, I will remove the t_newtran,
t_forward_nonack_uri and I try again.
Normally, you should not have to worry about the transaction state, just
process the INVITE and use t_relay() and let SER handle the
retransmissions etc. I cannot see that your scenario would require more
fine-grained control over the transaction state, but then I don't know
what you are trying to do...
g-)
Thanks again.
-----Messaggio originale-----
*Da:* Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
*Inviato:* mercoledì 6 settembre 2006 9.19
*A:* Zappasodi Daniele
*Cc:* serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
*Oggetto:* Re: [Serusers] Retransmission problem
1. DON'T have UA2 and SER on the same server. You are very likely
to get problems because SER sees it's own IP address in a message
destined for UA2
2. Don't use t_newtran and t_forward_nonack_uri unless you know
exactly what you do (and probably not then either)
3. When having problems like that, use a pretested Getting Started
config fil (http://iptel.org/ser/doc/gettingstarted). If you still
have the problem, there is something external (like UA2 on same
box as SER). Fix it and then compare the logic of your config file
with the Getting Started reference config
g-)
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
Hello,
I have a big problem with the retransmissions.
In my tests sometimes the retransmission handler doesn't seem to work properly
and it resends the INVITE after receiving a final response.
Moreover it doesn't respect the time-out (instead wait 1 second it resends the
packet after few decimal), but this is a minor item.
An example:
INVITE sip:31203
From 32201
UA1(32201) ---> SER ---> UA2(31203)
INVITE UA1 ---> SER ---> UA2
Trying UA1 <--- SER
183 UA1 <--- SER <--- UA2
480 UA1 <--- SER <--- UA2
ACK UA1 ---> SER ---> UA2
...
Other call.
After 0,5 msec SER sends again the first INVITE to UA2:
INVITE SER ---> UA2
183 SER <--- UA2
etc.
In the attached zipped file there are the syslog, the ser config file (only the
relevant parts) and the ethereal captures related to this example.
Some additional information:
SER version is 0.9.2, compiled for arm.
In my scenario SER and UA2 are on the same box.
In LAN_capture.cap file there is the message flow between UA1 and SER, in
lo_capture.cap between SER and UA2.
Can someone explain me this behaviour?
Maybe something wrong in my config file? Note that I use t_lookup_request, t_newtran,
t_forward_nonack_uri in order to recognize retransmitted INVITE, could it be here the
problem?
thanks
**********************************************************************
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or
omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
**********************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
**********************************************************************
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or
omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
**********************************************************************