Jiri Kuthan wrote: > At 12:44 29/02/2008, Klaus Darilion wrote: >> I vote for "remove" and have it "on" always. >> >> I never saw a reason for this parameter > > Maybe underdocumentation is the point why many folks seem to be excited > by removal :-) > > Well -- with RFC2543 it could have been quite inconvenient for you to > figure out that after say 90 seconds of early media (say on my favorite > callee, German imigration office) you will be disconnected by a proxy > server while stil in hope someone would answer for you. This is > particularly annoying if the server in the path is playing a special > purpose role (such as load-balancer) and surprises rest of the world > with a CANCEL. this has been a real trouble in the field. > > This obstacle should be in theory removed in RFC3261 which allows 18x > to extend the proxy server timer. > > (It goes back to the INVITE transaction as whole being misconcepted in > the SIP protocol, but that's frankly not worth fixing now.) > > With that, my recommendation is to check behaviour of existing gateways > before doing changes. (otherwise noisy_timer is undoubtably a confusing > hack which if absent makes things simpler)
I think there is no easy way to solve this. A workaround would be to increase the fr_inv_timer in the reply route (e.g. after getting a 183 response) - but I fear this would be difficult to implement. regards klaus _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
