You can go to openser.org's website and read about how
how openser and ser are related.
option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=61
They are now two separate bodies of code, maintained by
two different groups. Each one has gone off and implemented
and support what they think is important. Both projects
are open source projects, anyone is certainly welcome
to contribute to either.
-g
On Nov 7, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Rao Ramaratnamma wrote:
the ser ottendorf announcement does mention improved
timers. Cannot
openser include this feature too and cannot I merge ser with
openser for good timers? I am still trying to understand the
difference between ser and openser but standart compliance seems to
be very important matter!
Cannot people provide me with some hints? I am sure that I am not
the only who is asking the difference between ser and openser. ser
documentation does not appear uptodate, but the software as
sannounced appears impressive. I have already asked this question
but did not receive any answer.
thank you in advance!
rr
----- Original Message ----
From: Christian Schlatter <cs(a)unc.edu>
To: users(a)openser.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 10:52:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Users] TM : retransmission timers
Greg Fausak wrote:
Hello,
I believe this is a well known bug.
Granularity of timers is 1 second. So, if you sign up for a
timer to
be fired in 1 second it will happen anywhere
between 0 seconds and 1
second.
2 seconds will happen between 1 and 2 seconds. I usually set up my
timers to be 2, 2, 4, 8. There are VOIP providers that are pretty
sticky about
the first 500ms. If you are using one of them you're out of luck.
Yes, there is a timer process that wakes up every second to perform
retransmissions. I was actually quite surprised that OpenSER, which is
known to be very standards compliant, does not follow the RFC 3261
retransmission timeouts. On the other hand, the RFC 3261 timeout
values
are just suggestions and standards compliant SIP UA must accept
shorter
timeouts. Still it would be nice if OpenSER would support sub second
timers, this would allow for shorter fail-over times.
Christian
I believe SER has made timer changes to support more exact timer
intervals. They are a completely different camp, with a
different feature
set (although they share the same roots).
-g
On 11/7/06, Jean-François SMIGIELSKI <jf-smig(a)ibelgique.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I made strange observations about the intervals between
> retransmissions with the TM module.
> In my experiments, I used the default parameters for the TM module
> timers, and I sent an INVITE that cannot receive answers (it has a
> well known R-URI pattern that is forwarded to a place and port
that
> nobody listen).
>
> When reading RFC3261, I expected to see intervals between
> retransmissions of |500ms|1s|2s|4s|8s|16s|. 7 transmissions,
during 32s.
>
> But with OpenSER, (I have tested with the debian package 1.1.0-5
on a
> debian etch, and the cvs sources for 1.1.0 or
1.0.1compiled by
> myself), I can see intervals like <500ms, 2s, 4s, 4s,4s, ...
until 26s
> are spent (9 sendings). The first interval is
sometomes very short
> (40ms).
>
> Altough I like the sequence of 4s separated transmissions, I do not
> know why the first interval is so short, and why there is no
sending
> after 1s.
>
> Did anybody observed such behaviours? Are they normal?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> JF Smigielski.
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
iBELGIQUE, exprimez-vous !
http://web.ibelgique.com/
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users