Hi, I have the ethereal traces for the load run on SER. The 180 Ringing received from remote end has the second via field present in it. Even then i'm getting the same error. One more thing I've observed in the code that the value of 2nd via is being checked at two places. One in receive.c and another is forward.c.
The check in receive.c is passed but the same check got failed at one stage later (forward.c).
regds,
----- Forwarded by Parminder Nayyar/RCOM/RelianceADA on 08/07/2007 03:16 PM -----
"Weiter Leiter" bp4mls@googlemail.com Sent by: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org 08/07/2007 12:05 AM
To "Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com" Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com cc serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject Re: [Serusers] SER query...
In case you're using SER as a proxy, when it receives a request from upstream the message must contain already a Via; as it forwards the request downstream, it adds another Via/Via body, pointing to itself. When the reply comes from downstream, it must, thus, contain at least 2 Vias. Otherwise, the error is printed (and could indicate a broken/misconfigured downstream element).
WL.
On 8/4/07, Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com < Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com> wrote:
hi all, Currently i was trying to test SER under load conditions. At the load of just 10 simultaneous calls, the following error occured.
"ERROR: forward_reply: no 2nd via found in reply"
Note: Sometimes the error occured after 100-110 call and sometime it goes upto 1000 calls..
Can anybody help me in this issue....
regds, Piyush Bansal _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Try serdev@iptel.org with your question. g-)
Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com wrote:
Hi, I have the ethereal traces for the load run on SER. The 180 Ringing received from remote end *has the second via field* present in it. Even then i'm getting the same error. One more thing I've observed in the code that the value of 2nd via is being checked at two places. One in receive.c and another is forward.c.
The check in receive.c is passed but the same check got failed at one stage later (forward.c).
regds,
----- Forwarded by Parminder Nayyar/RCOM/RelianceADA on 08/07/2007 03:16 PM ----- *"Weiter Leiter" bp4mls@googlemail.com* Sent by: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org
08/07/2007 12:05 AM
To "Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com" Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com cc serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject Re: [Serusers] SER query...
In case you're using SER as a proxy, when it receives a request from upstream the message must contain already a Via; as it forwards the request downstream, it adds another Via/Via body, pointing to itself. When the reply comes from downstream, it must, thus, contain at least 2 Vias. Otherwise, the error is printed (and could indicate a broken/misconfigured downstream element).
WL.
On 8/4/07, *_Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com_* mailto:Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com <_ Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com_ mailto:Piyush.Bansal@relianceada.com> wrote:
hi all, Currently i was trying to test SER under load conditions. At the load of just 10 simultaneous calls, the following error occured.
"ERROR: forward_reply: no 2nd via found in reply*"
Note: Sometimes the error occured after 100-110 call and sometime it goes upto 1000 calls..
Can anybody help me in this issue....
regds, Piyush Bansal _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list_ __Serusers@lists.iptel.org_ mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org_ __http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers_
-- "C is a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language." _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Piyush.Bansal＠relianceada.com