Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio- Redirect message 300 with LCR reroute

Hi Juha Thanks so much for the response. The method I posted was a slightly modified version of the method already posted in this thread. What I believe the script is meant to do is as follows: 1) load gateways as per usual: if (!load_gws(1, $rU, $fu)) { sl_send_reply("502", "Unable to load gateways"); exit;} 2) Rewrite the current request uri to the first gateway or return an error if no gateways were found if(!next_gw()){ sl_send_reply("503", "Unable To find a gateway"); exit;} 3) Add all the other gateways that were found as additional end points to be tried after the first while(next_gw()){ append_branch(); } The reason that I thought it might reverse the order of the gateways was because of something you said previously in the thread in response to the original poster: " smaller priority value means higher priority. but if i remember correctly, in your script you used append_branch, which may be appending each new branch in front of the previous one. if so, the priority order that next_gw() function returns the gateways, get reversed. " No one responded to your last post in the thread so I wasn't sure if it was determined if this method would reverse the order or not. Thinking over this script a bit more I believe it is flawed or at the very least an incomplete example. It would cause all the branches to be contacted at once instead of in sequence. What really seems like it's needed here is something like the serial forking example found here: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking I went with trying the above method of doing the route advance because it was the only method my google search turned up. Perhaps something very simple like a failure route that calls next_gw would do the trick instead: failure_route["lcr_failure"] { if (!next_gw()) { t_reply("503", "Service not available - No more gateways"); exit; }; t_relay(); } What I am trying to accomplish is having kamailio contact my next lcr gateways in sequence if the first attempt failed. Do either of these methods: either serial forking of branches generated in a while loop with next_gw or calling next_gw() in a failure route, seem like the right way to proceed? Thanks again for your assistance. I hope this message finds you well. All the best Will Ferrer jh wrote -- View this message in context: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Kamailio-Redirect-message-300-with-… Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.