[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: serusers
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Parallel forking and rtpengine handling
From: George Diamantopoulos <georgediam () gmail ! com>
Date: 2020-01-24 15:09:38
Message-ID: CAPcKEYM0QOXtBxySX=4gKAOme5vfDG8eZ0TGUVn=E5jJXutdkg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On a side note, I think I might have found a bug for rtpengine_manage():
I'm under the impression that if called from within a branch_failure_route,
it will do an offer instead of a delete. Do you confirm and is this
intentional?
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:06, Sebastian Damm <damm@sipgate.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:29 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A remark for kamailio transaction states point of view: in failure rout=
e
> the entire transaction is in failed state, so there is not active branch,
> so at that point it should delete all (previous) rtpengine
> sessions/branches.
>
> This is what I had in mind. I don't think I end up in failure route if
> one branch is answered. My Question was, how to handle the canceled
> branch.
>
> > As I got it, the use of via-branch flag for deleting a session makes
> sense in event route for branch-failure, when other branches can still be
> active or one was answered.
>
> Do branches that get cancelled due to another branch answering the
> call go through the branch failure route?
>
> > Also in the case of parallel forking, if via-branch is not give to
> rtpengine offer command, does the 2nd (and the next) rtpengine offer
> command overwrite the previous one, so the rtpengine keeps only the data
> from the last one?
>
> We stumbled upon this problem only because we used rtpengine without
> the branch parameter. And what we saw was that the second
> rtpengine_offer overwrote the first one, making the first branch
> impossible to be answered in certain scenarios.
>
> Regards and thanks for all the answers so far.
> Sebastian
>
> --
> Sebastian Damm
> Voice Engineer
> __________________________________________
> sipgate GmbH
> Gladbacher Stra=C3=9Fe 74 | 40219 D=C3=BCsseldorf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">On a side note, I think I might have found a bug for \
rtpengine_manage(): I'm under the impression that if called from within a \
branch_failure_route, it will do an offer instead of a delete. Do you confirm and is \
this intentional?<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:06, Sebastian Damm <<a \
href="mailto:damm@sipgate.de">damm@sipgate.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:29 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla<br>
<<a href="mailto:miconda@gmail.com" target="_blank">miconda@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> > A remark for kamailio transaction states point of view: in failure \
route the entire transaction is in failed state, so there is not active branch, so at \
that point it should delete all (previous) rtpengine sessions/branches.<br> <br>
This is what I had in mind. I don't think I end up in failure route if<br>
one branch is answered. My Question was, how to handle the canceled<br>
branch.<br>
<br>
> As I got it, the use of via-branch flag for deleting a session makes sense in \
event route for branch-failure, when other branches can still be active or one was \
answered.<br> <br>
Do branches that get cancelled due to another branch answering the<br>
call go through the branch failure route?<br>
<br>
> Also in the case of parallel forking, if via-branch is not give to rtpengine \
offer command, does the 2nd (and the next) rtpengine offer command overwrite the \
previous one, so the rtpengine keeps only the data from the last one?<br> <br>
We stumbled upon this problem only because we used rtpengine without<br>
the branch parameter. And what we saw was that the second<br>
rtpengine_offer overwrote the first one, making the first branch<br>
impossible to be answered in certain scenarios.<br>
<br>
Regards and thanks for all the answers so far.<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Sebastian Damm<br>
Voice Engineer<br>
__________________________________________<br>
sipgate GmbH<br>
Gladbacher Straße 74 | 40219 Düsseldorf<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List<br>
<a href="mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org" \
target="_blank">sr-users@lists.kamailio.org</a><br> <a \
href="https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users</a><br> \
</blockquote></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic