On 12/04/16 17:33, Marrold wrote: > Hi, > > >>On 06/04/16 01:57, Marrold wrote: > >> Hi Charles, > >> > >> I can confirm that t_any_timeout(), and t_branch_timeout() return true > >> when these un-ACKd transactions occur. > > > by un-ACKed, do you mean they didn't receive any response or they didn't > > receive the ACK following a response to an INVITE? > > I mean specifically the response to an INVITE was not ACK'd > > >> I've been doing some experimentation with t_any_timeout() > and t_branch_timeout(), and I've observed they return true if either > the initial invite receives no response, or if the 200 OK >> is not > acknowledged by the UAC. > >> Is there any way of differentiating between these scenarios? > > > If Kamailio matches the 200ok for transaction, then it should not give true > > for a timeout > check. But maybe there is a mismatch also in kamailio if the 200ok is > sent to caller but it is no > ACK sent back. In such case, a sip > network trace will be useful to investigate what happens there. > > In this scenario a 200ok is sent to the caller, but no ACK is sent > back. This appears to return true for timeout checks. I will grab a > SIP trace. > > As a side note / update I figure I can potentially add a flag / AVP > when a response and / or ACK is received and figure out the cause of > the timeout from there. > You can also run with debug=3 in kamailio config to get more log messages in syslog. If there are too many, then use debugger module and set debug level to 3 only for tm module, then you should see if tm is matching the 200ok to a transaction.
Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com
_______________________________________________ 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
