| Summary: | ASTERISK-17155: qualifyfreq not respected when user is "UNREACHABLE" | ||
| Reporter: | Joel Oliveira (joeloliveira) | Labels: | |
| Date Opened: | 2010-12-23 11:36:19.000-0600 | Date Closed: | 2011-07-27 13:47:54 |
| Priority: | Major | Regression? | No |
| Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Channels/chan_sip/General |
| Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
| Related Issues: | |||
| Environment: | Attachments: | ( 0) tcpdump_bug_qualifyfreq.txt | |
| Description: | Although qualifyfreq can be configured on sip.conf and its value is used when a peer is Reachable (OK on 'sip show peers') the same doesn't happen when the peer is Unreachable. The explanation in http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+sip+qualify says that the qualifyfreq value will be used also for Unreachable peers although what does happen is that the peers are checked between constant intervals of less than what's defined by default on qualityfreq (60sec). OS: Debian 5.0.6 Asterisk: 1.6.2.13 and 1.6.2.15 ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** On the attached file there is a dump on the requests made for the port of the peer1 . As it's possible to see there are 3 requests made in intervals of 12 seconds. Upon the command 'sip show peer peer1' it's possible to see: Qualify Freq : 60000 ms Also, there are only being made 3 requests because of the MAX_RETRANS has been changed on chan_sip.c before compilation. But I guess this is not relevant to the problem. | ||
| Comments: | By: Joel Oliveira (joeloliveira) 2010-12-23 11:38:14.000-0600 It's not an SVN checkout, it's a tarball release. Sorry By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2011-07-27 13:47:48.421-0500 Per the Asterisk maintenance timeline page at http://www.asterisk.org/asterisk-versions maintenance (bug) support for the 1.4 and 1.6.x branches has ended. For continued maintenance support please move to the 1.8 branch which is a long term support (LTS) branch. For more information about branch support, please see https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+Versions If this is still an issue, please open a new issue so it can be re-triaged appropriately. Thanks! | ||