Hello,
I've noticed that pjsip (seen at least with 2.5.5 and 2.6) is not destroying SIP OPTIONS dialogs (at least over 100 or so still in memory), causing memory to continuously grow. I verified this by performing a `pjsua_dump(true);` after my process (a UAS/SIP trunk) has been running for some time. I am using pjsua2 FWIW. Here is an example dialog with the log level set to 9:
01:24:29.729 sip_endpoint.c Processing incoming message: Request msg OPTIONS/cseq=101 (rdata0x7f8160e9fb58)
01:24:29.729 pjsua_core.c .RX 372 bytes Request msg OPTIONS/cseq=101 (rdata0x7f8160e9fb58) from UDP 10.x.x.3:5070:
OPTIONS sip:10.x.x.240:5070 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.x.x.3:5070;branch=z9hG4bK1ca35f62036d1c
From: <sip:10.x.x.3>;tag=1262409931
To: <sip:10.x.x.240>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 05:24:29 GMT
Call-ID: 2a68ea00-99b1c00d-c5b0c-3a0030a@10.x.x.3
User-Agent: Cisco-CUCM10.5
CSeq: 101 OPTIONS
Contact: <sip:10.x.x.3:5070>
Max-Forwards: 0
Content-Length: 0
--end msg--
01:24:29.729 endpoint .Response msg 200/OPTIONS/cseq=101 (tdta0x7f8160c42e50) created
01:24:29.729 sip_resolve.c .Target '10.x.x.3:5070' type=UDP resolved to '10.x.x.3:5070' type=UDP (UDP transport)
01:24:29.729 pjsua_core.c .TX 655 bytes Response msg 200/OPTIONS/cseq=101 (tdta0x7f8160c42e50) to UDP 10.x.x.3:5070:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.x.x.3:5070;received=10.x.x.3;branch=z9hG4bK1ca35f62036d1c
Call-ID: 2a68ea00-99b1c00d-c5b0c-3a0030a@10.x.x.3
From: <sip:10.x.x.3>;tag=1262409931
To: <sip:10.x.x.240>;tag=z9hG4bK1ca35f62036d1c
CSeq: 101 OPTIONS
Allow: PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, INFO, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, REFER, MESSAGE, OPTIONS
Accept: application/sdp, application/pidf+xml, application/xpidf+xml, application/simple-message-summary, message/sipfrag;version=2.0, application/im-iscomposing+xml, text/plain
Supported: replaces, 100rel, timer, norefersub
Allow-Events: presence, message-summary, refer
Content-Length: 0
--end msg--
01:24:29.729 tdta0x7f8160c4 .Destroying txdata Response msg 200/OPTIONS/cseq=101 (tdta0x7f8160c42e50)
Is there something I may have configured incorrectly or is this a legit bug?
_______________________________________________ Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org pjsip mailing list pjsip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org
