Hi, I also had the same mistake at first. The correct table of the transmission times is as follows:
1. INVITE sent 2 500 3. 500+1 sec 4. 500+1 sec + 2 sec 5. 500 + 1 sec + 2 sec + 4 sec. 6. 500 + 1 sec + 2 sec + 4 sec + 8 sec 7. 500 + 1 sec + 2 sec + 4 sec + 8 sec + 16sec = 63*T1. In your table you set the interval between the retransmission and not the time that passed since the first transmission was sent. This is how I get that the seventh retransmission is after 63*T1. Sarit -----Original Message----- From: Chris Boulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:06 PM To: Sarit Galanos; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] The seventh INVITE transmission - isn't it a waste Sarit, This is the way I interpret it:- 1 INVITE sent 2 500 ms 3 1 sec 4 2 sec 5 4 sec 6 8 sec 7 16 sec 8 Timer B fires Does this make more sense? Chris. >-----Original Message----- >From: Sarit Galanos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 26 August 2003 13:31 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Sip-implementors] The seventh INVITE transmission - isn't it a >waste > >Hi, >For UDP the client transaction retransmits INVITE requests at an interval >that >starts at T1 seconds and doubles after every retransmission. >This should continue until timer B expires - 64*T1 msec. > >The result is that the seventh transmission takes place after 63*T1 >milliseconds. >Since T1 defaults to 500 msec, the transaction will terminate 500 msec >after >the last transmission. > >My question is: >Is this the expected behavior? >Isn't it a waste to retransmit the request 500 msec before the transaction >terminates? > >Regards, >Sarit. > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
