Re: Re: Termination of early Dialog

Great, thanks!

-Hai


On 3/17/07, M. (Neo-Ranga) Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I committed a fix. Give it a try and let me know if it works for you.
>
> Ranga
>
> On 3/16/07, Hai Phan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Actually I'm talking about the From tag being different between request
> and
> > response, which is prohibited.  Using SIPP I simulate the following
> > behavior:
> >
> > INVITE - From tag: 11c1f1d0, To tag: <empty>
> > 180 - From tag:  1000, To tag: 1
> > 200 - From tag:  2000, To tag: 1
> >
> > The 180 and 200 should have been rejected by the stack.  Instead they
> are
> > delivered to the SipListener, where I printed the following debug
> > information:
> >
> > 27059 [Thread-15] DEBUG - Received INVITE response: 180
> > 27059 [Thread-15] DEBUG - Early dialog ID:
> > [email protected]:1000:1
> > 27075 [Thread-15] DEBUG - Received INVITE response: 200
> > 27075 [Thread-15] DEBUG - 200 OK dialog ID:
> > [email protected]:2000:1
> > 27435 [EventScannerThread] DEBUG - Client transaction terminated:
> > z9hG4bK357671573a025ef25f0d7907e2a077a7
> >
> > The consequence of this erroneous scenario is that one of the two
> dialogs
> > remains active even after the session has terminated, and memory
> > accumulates.
> >
> > -Hai
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, M. (Neo-Ranga) Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The stack is assuming that the response with different To tags is as a
> > > result of upstream forking. When such a situation occurs, the
> > > application is supposed to delete dialogs that it does not want to
> > > use.
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Hai Phan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Oops, never mind.  I found that my UAS script is forcing a different
> > From
> > > > tag in the 180.  That's why the dialog IDs are different.  The stack
> > should
> > > > have rejected this 180 response then I suppose.  Could be a defect?
> > > >
> > > > -Hai
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/15/07, Hai Phan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Hello, I have a specific problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > When my UAC receives the 180 response with a To tag, it creates an
> > early
> > > > dialog.  This dialog never terminates and hence my program has
> memory
> > leak.
> > > > I'm not using reliable provisional responses, and I'm not sure what
> i
> > have
> > > > to do to signal the lower layer to terminate the dialog.
> > > > >
> > > > > This early dialog has a different dialog ID than the dialog
> > established by
> > > > the 200 OK, which gets terminated properly upon BYE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any suggestion is appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -Hai
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Hai H. Phan
> > > > Veraz Networks
> > > > Work: (408) 750-9498
> > > > Cell: (408) 806-6472
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > nist-sip mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/nist-sip
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > M. Ranganathan
> > > "There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one
> > > works." --  Alan Perlis
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hai H. Phan
> > Veraz Networks
> > Work: (408) 750-9498
> > Cell: (408) 806-6472
>
>
> --
> M. Ranganathan
> "There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one
> works." --  Alan Perlis
>



-- 
Hai H. Phan
Veraz Networks
Work: (408) 750-9498
Cell: (408) 806-6472

_______________________________________________
nist-sip mailing list
[email protected]
http://www-x.antd.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/nist-sip