<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.8.4">
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
ok thanks Daniel<BR>
<BR>
i was quite confused by seeing different things on different versions (which had sligthly configuration differences) and i though i was doing something wrong somewhere<BR>
<BR>
best regards<BR>
david<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
El mié, 27-01-2016 a las 14:55 +0100, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Hello,<BR>
<BR>
yes, quick connect message is ok. It is an INFO level, messages to worry about start at level WARNING, ERROR or lower.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 27/01/16 12:41, david wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
hello Daniel<BR>
<BR>
thanks for the explanation.<BR>
then i understand the "quick connect" message is also normal? seen in version 4.2.2 or 4.4?<BR>
<BR>
best regards<BR>
david<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
El mar, 26-01-2016 a las 12:45 +0100, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Hello,<BR>
<BR>
the pending write message is due to asynchronous tcp -- practically, even if the tcp connection is not ready, the SIP routing process is not blocked.<BR>
<BR>
If the connection is found or the connection was setup quickly, then is not a risk of blocking and the message is sent immediately.<BR>
<BR>
I guess all went ok with sip routing, right?<BR>
<BR>
Also, tcp is separate layer from sip transactions, so no relation between them here, probably you will get the same by using the forward*() functions, which don't create sip transactions.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
On 25/01/16 15:28, david escartin wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
hello all<BR>
<BR>
i'm facing some weird log from kamailio (i think they are weird) when using sip tcp in the caller side and udp in the callee side.<BR>
<BR>
seems like the tcp socket is active in the caller side and the call is connected, since the invite transaction completes.<BR>
After that, if we receive an in-dialog request from the callee side, the kamailio doesnt find the tcp connection created and it has to create again the socket by SYN procedure for the other conn way.<BR>
up to this point i think it's everything correct.<BR>
<BR>
<B>A----the thing i dont understand, is that checking version 4.2.6, the logs i have when the request in-dialog comes from UAS, are like these</B><BR>
<BR>
5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1820]: tcp_send(): tcp_send: no open tcp connection found, opening new one<BR>
5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [ip_addr.c:243]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: 79.170.68.171<BR>
5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1073]: tcpconn_new(): tcpconn_new: on port 5063, type 2<BR>
5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1382]: tcpconn_add(): tcpconn_add: hashes: 1522:2178:0, 4<BR>
<B>5(2979) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:2699]: tcpconn_1st_send(): pending write on new connection 0x7fac1168f028 (-1/968 bytes written)</B><BR>
5(2979) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:395]: t_relay_to(): SER: new transaction fwd'ed<BR>
<BR>
<B>B----while when using 4.2.2 or 4.4</B><BR>
1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1818]: tcp_send(): tcp_send: no open tcp connection found, opening new one<BR>
1(791) DEBUG: <core> [ip_addr.c:243]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: 79.170.68.171<BR>
1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1073]: tcpconn_new(): tcpconn_new: on port 5063, type 2<BR>
1(791) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1382]: tcpconn_add(): tcpconn_add: hashes: 1522:3421:0, 4<BR>
<B>1(791) INFO: <core> [tcp_main.c:2753]: tcpconn_1st_send(): quick connect for 0x7f880540f758</B><BR>
1(791) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:394]: t_relay_to(): SER: new transaction fwd'ed<BR>
<BR>
the difference between A and B is that in B i use dialog flags to do the t_relay_to_tcp for the indialog requests (and not in A), and in A i use the advertised IP in the listen addresses since kamailio is behind a NAT, while B machine scenario has public IPs.<BR>
could those 2 things explain the ebhaviour difference?<BR>
<BR>
is there anything abnormal in the case B?<BR>
<BR>
thanks a lot and regards<BR>
david escartin <BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org">sr-users@lists.sip-router.org</A>
<A HREF="http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users">http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<PRE>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<A HREF="http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda">http://twitter.com/#!/miconda</A> - <A HREF="http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda">http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda</A>
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - <A HREF="http://www.asipto.com">http://www.asipto.com</A>
<A HREF="http://miconda.eu">http://miconda.eu</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<PRE>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<A HREF="http://twitter.com/#!/miconda">http://twitter.com/#!/miconda</A> - <A HREF="http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda">http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda</A>
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - <A HREF="http://www.asipto.com">http://www.asipto.com</A>
<A HREF="http://miconda.eu">http://miconda.eu</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>