[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0012323]: Asterisk gives up on registration after receiving 408 Timeout response once

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=12323 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                voipdealer
Assigned To:                oej
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   12323
Category:                   Channels/chan_sip/Registration
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   major
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     assigned
Asterisk Version:           SVN 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Disclaimer on File?:        N/A 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             03-28-2008 09:11 CDT
Last Modified:              04-07-2008 14:11 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Asterisk gives up on registration after receiving
408 Timeout response once
Description: 
I have noticed the following behavior:
- Asterisk registers fine to SIP provider for days
- SIP provider sends one 408 response due to some temporary issue on their
network
- Asterisk never attempts to register again, until it is restarted,
resulting in loss of inbound service

Ideally, a 408 should never happen.  However, there are hundreds of
possible reasons a provider may send a 408 for a few seconds (systems are
failing over to backups, database is unavailable due to backup, whatever). 
Asterisk should just reschedule registration as it does with all other 4xx
errors.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 voipdealer - 04-07-08 14:11  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Any word on this issue?  I don't believe the quick fix is a breaking
change, RFC non-compliant, or technically incorrect.  I understand a more
robust retry mechanism may be desired, but there's no compelling reason to
hold off on this fix until that happens. 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
04-07-08 14:11  voipdealer     Note Added: 0085100                          
======================================================================