[OpenSIPS-Users] Broadsoft reininvite / ack order switched at opensips

Wed Sep 1 14:52:51 CEST 2010

Hi Jeff

Did you ever find a true resolution for the Broadsoft reinvite issue, I'm experiencing the same issue where OpenSIPS processes the Re-Invite before the ACK.

This "Race Condition" causes our Gateway Controller to send a BYE and disconnect the call.

Any new workaround for this?

Thanks

Albert

On 03 Apr 2010, at 2:21 AM, Jeff Pyle wrote:

If the SDP from the provider in their 200 OK has a c=0.0.0.0, I'd ask the provider what's up.

I bet it's the provider's SBC not able to handle the fact that Broadworks puts the SDP on the ACK.  I've met a few that handle it incorrectly.

- Jeff

On Apr 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Brett Nemeroff wrote:

Jeff,
I used the cfgutils usleep function to achieve the same and it worked
perfectly. The 400 Bad request because of the race condition regarding
the ACK/reinvite is fixed. With one exception....

The reINVITE from the BroadSoft has no SDP.

BroadSoft ---> reINVITE-->OpenSIPS ----> Provider (NO SDP in invite)
Provider ---> 200 OK + SDP ---> OpenSIPs --> Broadsoft (has c=0.0.0.0 in it)
BroadSoft --> ACK + SDP --> OpenSIPs -> Provider (has c=0.0.0.0 in it)

Needless to say, there is no audio on this call.

I think it's worth mentioning that:
1. This is ONE LEG of a simultaneous ring from a BroadSoft
2. The initial invite for this leg has a c=0.0.0.0 from the BroadSoft
in SDP (before the reINVITE)

Who's at fault here? Any ideas?

Thanks,
Brett

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Jeff Pyle <jpyle at fidelityvoice.com<mailto:jpyle at fidelityvoice.com>> wrote:
First, the nuts and bolts.

In the loose_route section:

      if (!is_method("ACK")) {
              perl_exec("nonack_delay");
      }

And, in the Perl file:

      sub nonack_delay {
              select(undef,undef,undef,0.060);
              return 1;
      }

I lied.  Not 100ms, but 60ms.

This worked like a champ, at the cost of keeping a non-ACK message fermenting in the process for exactly 60ms longer than it otherwise would have.  A bit of a kick in teeth to scalability but I saw no other solution.

I do believe 400 was the negative response of choice from most UAs subjected to the out-of-order ugliness.

- Jeff

On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Brett Nemeroff wrote:

WOW

Ok, well the real question is.. did the 100ms sleep fix your problem?
And what was the result of the ordering issue for you? Did you get a
400 from the provider like I'm seeing?

I'll give it a shot..
-Brett

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Jeff Pyle <jpyle at fidelityvoice.com<mailto:jpyle at fidelityvoice.com>> wrote:
This goes way back.  Bogdan addressed it last year sometime, citing a reason why ACK processing is slower than other processing.  And, since the two messages hit different children of Opensips, the ACK hits the exit gate after the reINVITE, even though the ACK arrived first.  I've seen it with Broadworks and Asterisk.

There were a number of solutions posted although none of them worked for me.  My workaround is to call a perl script to sleep for 100ms if the message is not an ACK.  That allows the ACK time to get through.  I would certainly love a "real" solution, that is, speeding up the ACK or some other mechanism to enforce the sequence.

- Jeff

On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Brett Nemeroff wrote:

Hello All,
I'm working with a Broadsoft which is setup to send outbound calls to
OpenSIPs. The Broadsoft extension is set to ring simultaneously
multiple extensions. One which hits the proxy and the other is
internal on the broadsoft.

What I'm seeing is an outbound call from broadsoft to the proxy to the
provider (normal)
the provider answers and replies with a 200 OK, forwarded onto
broadsoft, without problem.

However, then I immediately get a ACK / INVITE FROM the broadsoft in
reply to the 200 OK. That seems ok, but when it goes to the provider
the ORDER is switched and it forwards the INVITE first THEN the ACK.

I'm not sure if that matters, but the provider is replying with a 400
Bad Request. Which may be because I'm trying to reinvite a call which
hasn't been ACKd yet?

Any ideas here? why would the order change? And could this potentially
cause call setup issues?

Thanks,
Brett

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at lists.opensips.org<mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

Internet Solutions
Tel: +27(0)87 356 6566
Cell: +27(0)78 803 2800
VoIS: +27(0)87 350 0118
Web: www.is.co.za/vois<http://www.is.co.za/vois> <http://www.is.co.za/vois>

Please note: This email and its content are subject to the disclaimer as displayed at the following link http://www.is.co.za/legal/E-mail+Confidentiality+Notice+and+Disclaimer.htm. Should you not have Web access, send a mail to disclaimers at is.co.za and a copy will be emailed to you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100901/5af33c2d/attachment-0001.htm 