[SIPForum-discussion] Regarding 180 ringing
vijay kant gupta
vijaykant.it2002 at gmail.com
Wed May 6 08:58:24 UTC 2009
Thanks to all of you for giving valuable comments,
Regards
Vijay Gupta
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Moshe Ostrovsky <mosheo at radvision.com>wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
>
> To prevent client transaction from hanging forever in proceeding state,
> user can start an *application level timer*, which is indicated using
> Expires header in initial INVITE.
>
>
>
> RFC 3261 says:
>
> 13.2.1 Creating the Initial INVITE
>
> The UAC MAY add an Expires header field (Section 20.19) to limit the
>
> validity of the invitation. If the time indicated in the Expires
>
> header field is reached and no final answer for the INVITE has been
>
> received, the UAC core SHOULD generate a CANCEL request for the
>
> INVITE, as per Section 9.
>
>
>
> 13.3.1 Processing of the INVITE
>
> If the request is an INVITE that contains an Expires header
>
> field, the UAS core sets a timer for the number of seconds
>
> indicated in the header field value. When the timer fires, the
>
> invitation is considered to be expired. If the invitation
>
> expires before the UAS has generated a final response, a 487
>
> (Request Terminated) response SHOULD be generated.
>
>
>
> Hope it answers your question.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Moshe Ostrovsky*
>
> SIP-IMS **
>
>
>
> R*A*D*V*ISION®
>
> Delivering the Visual ExperienceTM
>
>
>
> Website: www.radvision.com
>
>
>
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Garron, James
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:49 PM
> *To:* vijay kant gupta; discussion at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Regarding 180 ringing
>
>
>
> Interesting question.
>
>
>
> I believe that once you receive the provisional response putting the call
> into the proceeding state you would reset Timer B (T1*64), and that the call
> would stay in the proceeding state until receiving a final response of until
> Timer B is expires. Of course if there were a retransmission of the
> provisional response that would reset Timer B again.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *vijay kant gupta
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:48 AM
> *To:* discussion at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* [SIPForum-discussion] Regarding 180 ringing
>
>
>
> Hi ,
>
> My question is
>
> Q if uac receive 180 ringing and he didn't get any final response "under
> proceeding state so at that time which timer get expire and what is the
> duration for that timer?
>
>
> Fig:--
>
> |INVITE from TU
>
> Timer A fires |INVITE sent
>
> Reset A, V Timer B fires
>
> INVITE sent +-----------+ or Transport Err.
>
>
>
>
>
> +---------| |---------------+inform TU
>
> | | Calling | |
>
> +-------->| |-------------->|
>
> +-----------+ 2xx |
>
>
>
>
>
> | | 2xx to TU |
>
> | |1xx |
>
> 300-699 +---------------+ |1xx to TU |
>
> ACK sent | | |
>
>
>
>
>
> resp. to TU | 1xx V |
>
> | 1xx to TU -----------+ |
>
> | +---------| | |
>
> | | |Proceeding |-------------->|
>
>
>
>
>
> | +-------->| | 2xx |
>
> | +-----------+ 2xx to TU |
>
> | 300-699 | |
>
> | ACK sent, | |
>
>
>
>
>
> | resp. to TU| |
>
> | | | NOTE:
>
> | 300-699 V |
>
> | ACK sent +-----------+Transport Err. | transitions
>
>
>
>
>
> | +---------| |Inform TU | labeled with
>
> | | | Completed |-------------->| the event
>
> | +-------->| | | over the action
>
>
>
>
>
> | +-----------+ | to take
>
> | ^ | |
>
> | | | Timer D fires |
>
> +--------------+ | - |
>
>
>
>
>
> | |
>
> V |
>
> +-----------+ |
>
> | | |
>
>
>
>
>
> | Terminated|<--------------+
>
> | |
>
> +-----------+
>
>
>
> Figure 5: INVITE client transaction
>
>
>
> Need to modify RFC 3261 for handling that response or not , please specify your valuable comment .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ThanKs in advance
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Vijay Gupta
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20090506/661836be/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list