Improve fsctl recover logic #2922
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have tried to test call recovering logic, and i have found some problems.
The current logic includes some anomalies regarding SIP logic.
Actually, FS on RE-Invite, includes SIP in a "wrong way":
Old Via header;Record-Route's;This causes troubles in the RE-Invite transaction, because if we have
Proxiesin the middle, this generates loops in the middle. As FS is the UA that origintaes the RE-Invite, must put only Route headers that belong to the dialog there, RR must not be added.Adding the old Via header its also a bad practice, this is a new transaction...
Example of actual behaviour:
More people report similar problems/questions?
Yes.
#2403
What includes the PR:
Tested and Works fine:
Yes.
Mid-Req's working on both ends.
Example: