| Previous | Next |
| RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_LOOP_DETECTED | RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_ADDRESS_INCOMPLETE |
RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_TOO_MANY_HOPS
Protocol boundary: RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_TOO_MANY_HOPS
This result should be investigated at the point where RTC handles a peer, proxy, registrar, or gateway returning a specific SIP response to the RTC transaction, and the condition to prove for this HRESULT is the request exhausted its Max-Forwards allowance before reaching a final destination.
This result is represented as 0x80EF01E3 in the RTC SIP-status facility carrying status 483; for this HRESULT, record the symbolic name alongside the unsigned hexadecimal value; a decimal exception alone is poor evidence for RTC protocol diagnosis.
To establish this result, record the initial and received Max-Forwards values and each known proxy hop; for this HRESULT, this matters because Too Many Hops can result from a long route even when no exact loop is proven.
Protocol and object boundary
| RTC area | SIP final response boundary |
|---|---|
| Objects to correlate | SIP request method, client transaction, response status, dialog identifiers and method-specific headers |
| Condition to prove | the request exhausted its Max-Forwards allowance before reaching a final destination |
| Safe corrective direction | fix routing or initial construction; raising the value alone can amplify a loop |
The API and protocol context for this HRESULT is not optional: The facility code preserves the SIP status number; diagnosis should start with the method and responding hop rather than treating every value as a local COM failure; the related this result control-flow rule is that Some responses invite a modified request or authenticated retry, while others are terminal for the current target or even global for the addressed user.
How to prove the condition
- Start from
0x80EF01E3and it, then find the method/event pair that first exposed it. - check whether the failure was local before transmission, produced during RTC state validation, or mapped from a remote response.
- the proof step is to record the initial and received Max-Forwards values and each known proxy hop.
- keep the analysis at the right boundary: Too Many Hops can result from a long route even when no exact loop is proven.
- after you fix routing or initial construction; raising the value alone can amplify a loop, repeat the smallest reproducer rather than restarting the entire application environment.
A SIP capture without RTC callback state cannot show which local object accepted or rejected the transition; for this HRESULT, an HRESULT-only log has the opposite weakness: it cannot show whether the result was generated before transmission or mapped from the peer.
Minimum incident record
Capture the first result before retry, reconnect, profile re-enable, or teardown changes the evidence; associate it with one RTC object generation and one transaction or media transition.
- Code-specific proof for this HRESULT: record the initial and received Max-Forwards values and each known proxy hop.
- Owning object for this HRESULT: Call-ID/CSeq/tags.
- Wire evidence for this HRESULT: status-specific headers.
- Lifecycle generation for this HRESULT: retry or alternate-target decision.
A useful it trace does not require communication content or secrets; in the result record, keep structural metadata and correlation identifiers while removing passwords, authorization material, complete numbers, and private presence data.
Actions that do not address this condition
- The following shortcut is unsafe for this HRESULT: do not retry every 4xx or 5xx response with the identical request.
- Do not show a reason phrase as trusted server identity or authorization evidence.
- Keep it intact through exception and UI layers; a generic parameter or network message is insufficient for diagnosis.
Correct application response
Resolve it at its producing layer: fix routing or initial construction; raising the value alone can amplify a loop; after it, a separate UI or watchdog retry must wait until that layer reports a final state.
Do not turn it into an immediate unconditional retry; for this HRESULT, first determine whether the peer could have accepted the prior request and whether RTC still owns a live transaction.
Example for this HRESULT: A misconfigured route traverses many intermediaries until Max-Forwards reaches zero.
Nearby failure modes
The practical separator for this HRESULT is this: 482 explicitly detects a loop in routing; for this HRESULT, compare that boundary with these related RTC values.
RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED | an intermediary proxy requires authentication before forwarding the request |
|---|---|
RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_UNAUTHORIZED | the user agent server or registrar requires end-server authentication |
RTC_E_STATUS_CLIENT_BAD_REQUEST | the receiving SIP element could not understand the request because its syntax or framing was invalid |
Telemetry for this HRESULT should retain these distinctions even when several outcomes share HRESULT severity.
Verification after a fix
A regression test for this HRESULT should reproduce “the request exhausted its Max-Forwards allowance before reaching a final destination” with the smallest profile, message, session, presence, media, or PINT fixture; for this HRESULT, assert 0x80EF01E3, the responsible method/event, and the object state after the result; then, for this HRESULT, change only the decisive precondition and verify that the corrected run leaves no stale transaction or RTC object.
Technical references
- Microsoft RTC return constants — definitions relevant when reproducing it.
- SIP response semantics — API or protocol rules used to interpret it.
Looking for a different code? Search another status or error code.