30 Nov
2005
30 Nov
'05
6:54 p.m.
Hi Frederico,
what should be clear is that the AVPs doesn't belong to the
request/reply or to the user or whatever. They are bound to a transaction!
Since hop by hop ACK s are part of the INVITE transaction, you will see
for ACK the INVITE's AVPS.
one more thing! the transaction AVPs will be visible only one you called
a statefull function.
this explain the behaviour you see.
regards,
bogdan
Federico Giannici wrote:
The mistery keeps increasing!
I have found that if I set an AVP in an INVITE message, then the same
AVP is logged in the ACCOUNTING of the corresponding ACK message!
But it is NOT in the ACK message before it enters the transaction
engine (with a t_relay()). So it is the transaction engine that
"copies" the INVITE AVPS to the ACK. Or the accounting routines use
the AVPs from the corresponding INVITE instead of the ACK ones.
Is this the expected behaviour?
Why this happens?
Thanks.
Federico Giannici wrote:
I'm still not able to make these errors
reproducible.
Now I found that the "AVPs vanishing" occours with 200 OK situations
too. It seems to be related to packets retransmission. They occur
when the following errors are logged:
Nov 28 22:28:30 eowyn OpenSER[3010]: ERROR: t_newtran: transaction
already in process 0x502bbc58
Nov 28 22:28:30 eowyn OpenSER[3010]: ERROR: sl_reply_error used: I'm
terribly sorry, server error occurred (1/SL)
These are generated by this classic code:
if ( !t_relay() )
{
sl_reply_error();
}
Now I'm asking myself: is it correct to reply to a message that is a
retrasmission? Shouldn't we simply ignore it? Couldn't it confuse the
UAs?
Thanks.
Federico Giannici wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Federico,
use avp_print() (works only with debug=9) in failure_route to
inspect the list of present AVP. maybe you do not have the AVPs you
are trying to log.
But I set those AVPs in EVERY message received by the server.
Moreover, I'm SURE they are there because before forwarding those
INVITEs with t_relay() I log the messages to syslog and the AVPs ARE
THERE.
Then, when some kind of errors are received (488, 422, etc.) it
seems that those AVPs are "lost" by the transaction engine...
But I'm not sure what conditions cause this lost.
Bye.
> Federico Giannici wrote:
>
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> have you set the flag to log missed transaction?
>>> http://openser.org/docs/modules/1.0.x/acc.html#AEN407
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I set the following:
>>
>> modparam("acc", "db_flag", 1)
>> modparam("acc", "failed_transaction_flag", 1)
>>
>> But no "db_missed_flag".
>> Anyway:
>>
>> 1) I don't want to log missed calls in a separate table.
>>
>> 2) The failed INVITEs are actually logged in the normal table, but
>> the AVPs I set are not logged (it seems that they are not found).
>>
>> In normal cases the AVP are correctly logged. Even in many error
>> cases (404, and so on) they are logged too. But in some cases,
>> with strange errors (488, 422), the AVPs are NOT logged
>> (accounting is done, but AVPs are "n\a")!
>>
>> Any explanation of this?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>> Or is that the some avps are not any more stored for failed
>>> transaction? Maybe some snippets of your config will give us more
>>> hints about what happens there.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 11/26/05 14:04, Federico Giannici wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm using OpenSER 1.0.0 on OpenBSD 3.7 amd64.
>>>>
>>>> I have a strange problem with the accounting: I set a couple of
>>>> AVPs for every message that arrives at the server. I'm sure they
>>>> are there because they are written in the syslog logging.
>>>> Sometimes, when an INVITE is relayed (with transactions) and
>>>> receives an error (488, 422, etc.), in the SQL logging there is
>>>> no more presence of the AVPs!
>>>> Is this a known problem?
>>>> How can I avoid this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>