30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
2:34 p.m.
Hello list,
for a few weeks now I am thinking about the idea of something like
"delayed branches".
For example if one INVITE lookup results in 2 contacts/branches, then
the first branch should be executed directly but the second should
experience a delay of some seconds, until the INVITE is being sent out
to the 2nd contact.
Such a feature would be really useful for users, if they would like to
configure their delayed redirects server-side and not client-side
(devices).
I have some doubts, whether it's reasonable in general, if a sip proxy
behaves like this (delays requests...) - what do you think?
Best Regards
Jasmin
30 Jun
30 Jun
2:39 p.m.
Jasmin Schnatterbeck writes:
For example if one INVITE lookup results in 2
contacts/branches, then
the first branch should be executed directly but the second should
experience a delay of some seconds, until the INVITE is being sent out
to the 2nd contact.
you can do this using serial forking if there is a sleep() function (i
don't remember if such exists).
-- juha
3:14 p.m.
Hi Juha,
thanks for your response
There is such a sleep function:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.0.x/modules_k/cfgutils.html#id2753004
"The module provides as well functions to delay the execution of the
server. The functions “sleep” and “usleep” could be used to let the
server wait a specific time interval."
Hmm...letting the whole server sleep would not really be the idea ;-)
Do you know of other functions like this?
Best Regards
Jasmin
Jasmin Schnatterbeck writes:
For example if one INVITE lookup results in 2
contacts/branches, then
the first branch should be executed directly but the second should
experience a delay of some seconds, until the INVITE is being sent out
to the 2nd contact.
you can do this using serial forking if there is a sleep() function (i
don't remember if such exists).
-- juha 
3:27 p.m.
Am 30.06.2010 15:25, schrieb Juha Heinanen:
Jasmin Schnatterbeck writes:
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, thats not good.
Hmm...letting the whole server sleep would not
really be the idea ;-)
i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but just the
process handling the request at hand.
3:34 p.m.
Klaus Darilion writes:
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, thats not
good.
it is not good, but such "sleeps" can happen also when an ua is not
responding immediately, when you do an http query, etc.
unfortunately a function execute_next_function_asynchronously() does not
exit.
-- juha
Hmm...letting the whole server sleep would not really
be the idea ;-)
i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but just the
process handling the request at hand. 
3:54 p.m.
Hi,
What is the goal of a "delayed branch"? What you can do (and could do for
many versions now) is the serial forking together with a defined timeout of
some seconds for each branch... (e.g. first try location 1 for a few
seconds, then try location 2 for few seconds, ...).
Carsten
2010/6/30 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Klaus Darilion writes:
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, thats not
good.
it is not good, but such "sleeps" can happen also when an ua is not
responding immediately, when you do an http query, etc.
unfortunately a function execute_next_function_asynchronously() does not
exit.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Carsten Bock
Schomburgstr. 80
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Mobile +49 179 2021244
Home +49 40 34927217
Fax +49 40 34927218
mailto:carsten@bock.info
Hmm...letting the whole server sleep would not really
be the idea ;-)
i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but just the
process handling the request at hand.
4:16 p.m.
Hi,
the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
the INVITE request to the contact.
This could be useful, if a user
- has a mailbox <somewhere>, which answers the call without waiting
(like many cell phone providers' mailboxes do, if a call gets forwarded
to them)
- would like to predefine multiple destinations, for example tel.
exchange and users phone, but the users phone should only ring
_additionally_ , if the call was not answered for <x> seconds by the
tel. exchange.
- ...
there are many use cases, but a function would be needed, which delays
further script processing for specific branches only or (that could be
the better solution) the definition of a special branch-individual avp
which holds the seconds to wait and which is evaluated by tm.
Jasmin
Hi,
What is the goal of a "delayed branch"? What you can do (and could do
for many versions now) is the serial forking together with a defined
timeout of some seconds for each branch... (e.g. first try location 1
for a few seconds, then try location 2 for few seconds, ...).
Carsten
2010/6/30 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Klaus Darilion writes:
thats not
>> Hmm...letting the whole server sleep
would not really be
the idea ;-)
>
> i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but
just
the
process
handling the request at hand.
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, good.
it is not good, but such "sleeps" can happen also when an ua
is not
responding immediately, when you do an http query, etc.
unfortunately a function
execute_next_function_asynchronously() does not
exit.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Carsten Bock
Schomburgstr. 80
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Mobile +49 179 2021244
Home +49 40 34927217
Fax +49 40 34927218
mailto:carsten@bock.info
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev 
4:20 p.m.
Jasmin Schnatterbeck wrote:
Hi,
the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
the INVITE request to the contact.
This could be useful, if a user
- has a mailbox <somewhere>, which answers the call without waiting
(like many cell phone providers' mailboxes do, if a call gets forwarded
to them)
- would like to predefine multiple destinations, for example tel.
exchange and users phone, but the users phone should only ring
_additionally_ , if the call was not answered for <x> seconds by the
tel. exchange.
- ...
there are many use cases, but a function would be needed, which delays
further script processing for specific branches only or (that could be
the better solution) the definition of a special branch-individual avp
which holds the seconds to wait and which is evaluated by tm.
Jasmin
Hello
Have you checked TM's t_suspend() and t_continue() [1]? ATM, they are
only usable internally from modules, but I think they can provide the
building blocks for what you want.
[1] http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#t_suspend
Marius
Hi,
What is the goal of a "delayed branch"? What you can do (and could do
for many versions now) is the serial forking together with a defined
timeout of some seconds for each branch... (e.g. first try location 1
for a few seconds, then try location 2 for few seconds, ...).
Carsten
2010/6/30 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Klaus Darilion writes:
thats not
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>> Hmm...letting the whole server sleep
would not really be
the idea ;-)
>
> i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but
just
the
process
handling the request at hand.
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, good.
it is not good, but such "sleeps" can happen also when an ua
is not
responding immediately, when you do an http query, etc.
unfortunately a function
execute_next_function_asynchronously() does not
exit.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Carsten Bock
Schomburgstr. 80
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Mobile +49 179 2021244
Home +49 40 34927217
Fax +49 40 34927218
mailto:carsten@bock.info
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
4:25 p.m.
2010/6/30 Jasmin Schnatterbeck <js(a)data-cmr.net>et>:
Hi,
the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
the INVITE request to the contact.
This could be useful, if a user
- has a mailbox <somewhere>, which answers the call without waiting
(like many cell phone providers' mailboxes do, if a call gets forwarded
to them)
- would like to predefine multiple destinations, for example tel.
exchange and users phone, but the users phone should only ring
_additionally_ , if the call was not answered for <x> seconds by the
tel. exchange.
- ...
there are many use cases, but a function would be needed, which delays
further script processing for specific branches only or (that could be
the better solution) the definition of a special branch-individual avp
which holds the seconds to wait and which is evaluated by tm.
I cannot understand why you don't use the very usual and common serial
forking for such purpose. Any reason?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
4:44 p.m.
Hi,
with serial/parallel forking you can process contacts based on timeouts
or receiving a reply via onreply or onfailure route.
As I understand it, it is not possible to trigger the processing of
"next" contacts (according to the q-value) by a timer only - that means
to trigger next contacts delayed while the higher-priority-contacts are
still ringing (onreply route would be called directly after receiving a
reply)...
Jasmin
2010/6/30 Jasmin Schnatterbeck
<js(a)data-cmr.net>et>:
Hi,
the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
the INVITE request to the contact.
This could be useful, if a user
- has a mailbox <somewhere>, which answers the call without waiting
(like many cell phone providers' mailboxes do, if a call gets forwarded
to them)
- would like to predefine multiple destinations, for example tel.
exchange and users phone, but the users phone should only ring
_additionally_ , if the call was not answered for <x> seconds by the
tel. exchange.
- ...
there are many use cases, but a function would be needed, which delays
further script processing for specific branches only or (that could be
the better solution) the definition of a special branch-individual avp
which holds the seconds to wait and which is evaluated by tm.
I cannot understand why you don't use the very usual and common serial
forking for such purpose. Any reason?
8:56 p.m.
Hi jasmin,
On 06/30/10 07:25, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/6/30 Jasmin
Schnatterbeck<js(a)data-cmr.net>et>:
> Hi,
>
> the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
> wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
> the INVITE request to the contact.
if I understand you correctly,
You have 3 contacts: UA-A, UA-B, UA-C
You want:
INVITE to UA-A
[no response then] INVITE UA-A *and* UA-B
[no response then] INVITE UA-A *and* UA-B *and* UA-C
So its a serial set of parallel forks?
In that case, its just a case of loading up your branches correctly.
I am not an expert, and my experience is with kamailio 1.5, but it seems
that from your initial contact lookup you should have 3 contacts with
different q values.
For example, if we were building it by hand, it might be:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.9")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-c(a)baz.com".com", "0.2")
You'd just make sure that you *additionally* had:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.2")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.2")
When you do the t_load_contacts, it would sort all the branches into 3
sets (0.9, 0.5, 0.2), with increasing numbers of contacts (a, a+b, a+b+c)
your failure route just re-arms itself and loads the next group of contacts:
failure_route[1] {
t_on_failure("1");
if (t_next_contacts()) {
t_relay();
}
9:20 p.m.
2010/6/30 Nathan Angelacos <nangelacos(a)genericconf.com>om>:
I am not an expert, and my experience is with kamailio
1.5, but it seems
that from your initial contact lookup you should have 3 contacts with
different q values.
For example, if we were building it by hand, it might be:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.9")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-c(a)baz.com".com", "0.2")
You'd just make sure that you *additionally* had:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.2")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.2")
When you do the t_load_contacts, it would sort all the branches into 3 sets
(0.9, 0.5, 0.2), with increasing numbers of contacts (a, a+b, a+b+c)
your failure route just re-arms itself and loads the next group of contacts:
failure_route[1] {
t_on_failure("1");
if (t_next_contacts()) {
t_relay();
It would be a bit ugly as the proxy would generate 3 consecutive calls
to UA-A (3 missed calls in UA-A) and two to UA-B.
Isn't there something like route_timer in 3.X? In this way a timer
could be armed for the first branch so the second would be generated
and so on.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
1 Jul
1 Jul
12:44 p.m.
Hi Nathan,
thank you for the description.
Hi jasmin,
On 06/30/10 07:25, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
in this case it would be possible to realize it with serial/parallel
forks - as you have stated.
But in the case I am thinking of, UA-B and UA-C do not have to wait for
a timeout of UA-A. They are completely independent and have separate
timers, which trigger their INVITEs...
Jasmin
2010/6/30 Jasmin
Schnatterbeck<js(a)data-cmr.net>et>:
> Hi,
>
> the idea is to do parallel forking (not wait for reply or timeout), but
> wait (for each branch) a specific amount of seconds, before sending out
> the INVITE request to the contact.
if I understand you correctly,
You have 3 contacts: UA-A, UA-B, UA-C
You want:
INVITE to UA-A
[no response then] INVITE UA-A *and* UA-B
[no response then] INVITE UA-A *and* UA-B *and* UA-C
So its a serial set of parallel forks?
In that case, its just a case of loading up your branches correctly.
I am not an expert, and my experience is with kamailio 1.5, but it seems
that from your initial contact lookup you should have 3 contacts with
different q values.
For example, if we were building it by hand, it might be:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.9")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-c(a)baz.com".com", "0.2")
You'd just make sure that you *additionally* had:
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.5")
append_branch ("ua-a(a)foo.com".com", "0.2")
append_branch ("ua-b(a)bar.com".com", "0.2")
When you do the t_load_contacts, it would sort all the branches into 3
sets (0.9, 0.5, 0.2), with increasing numbers of contacts (a, a+b, a+b+c)
your failure route just re-arms itself and loads the next group of contacts:
failure_route[1] {
t_on_failure("1");
if (t_next_contacts()) {
t_relay();
}
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
1:06 p.m.
2010/7/1 Jasmin Schnatterbeck <js(a)data-cmr.net>et>:
Hi Nathan,
thank you for the description.
But in the case I am thinking of, UA-B and UA-C do not have to wait for
a timeout of UA-A. They are completely independent and have separate
timers, which trigger their INVITEs...
Look for route_event in Kamailio/SR 3.X. Perhaps it's possible.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
30 Jun
30 Jun
4:35 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Am 30.06.2010 15:25, schrieb Juha Heinanen:
Hi Klaus,
indeed, it will block this specific process for other requests. So at the
moment i think its mainly useful with small timeouts and probably for
debugging.
Cheers,
Henning
Jasmin Schnatterbeck writes:
So if 4 user have delayed calling, 4 processes are sleeping, thats not
good. Hmm...letting the whole server sleep would not
really be the idea ;-)
i don't think that the whole server will get to sleep, but just the
process handling the request at hand.
3:32 p.m.
Just to be sure what you want: You want to start another branch, but
keep the original branch still alive - thus a mixture of parallel and
sequential forking (I would call it delayed parallel forking).
Nice idea. I think there are currently no means to accomplish that.
regards
Klaus
Am 30.06.2010 14:34, schrieb Jasmin Schnatterbeck:
Hello list,
for a few weeks now I am thinking about the idea of something like
"delayed branches".
For example if one INVITE lookup results in 2 contacts/branches, then
the first branch should be executed directly but the second should
experience a delay of some seconds, until the INVITE is being sent out
to the 2nd contact.
Such a feature would be really useful for users, if they would like to
configure their delayed redirects server-side and not client-side
(devices).
I have some doubts, whether it's reasonable in general, if a sip proxy
behaves like this (delays requests...) - what do you think?
Best Regards
Jasmin
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
5045
days inactive
5046
days old
16 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Carsten Bock -
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Jasmin Schnatterbeck -
Juha Heinanen -
Klaus Darilion -
marius zbihlei -
Nathan Angelacos