23 Feb
2005
23 Feb
'05
8:28 p.m.
Hi
I have both working, but I call second thing: step by step routing or follow
me feature :)
That the example:
In route procedure I have:
append_urihf("CC-Diversion: ", "\r\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 1");
t_on_failure("1");
in failure_route[1] I have:
if (t_check_status("486")) {
xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: BUSY, getroute_a_t 2 busy\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 busy");
} else if (t_check_status("408")) {
xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Request timeout, getroute_a_t 2
timeout\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 timeout");
} else if (t_check_status("404")) {
xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Not found, 2 notfound\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 notfound");
} else if (t_check_status("500")) {
xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Not found, 2 disconnected\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 disconnected");
} else{
xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Other. getroute_a_t 2 other\n");
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 other");
}
append_branch();
t_on_failure("2");
I execute getroute_a_t with parametr 2 that means second step and disconnect
couse to distinct busy from other resons and make customer choose to forward
call if busy, if no answer if something else
In failure_route[2] I have:
exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 3 other");
append_branch();
t_on_failure("3");
and so on until 5 :)
on any step getroute can return few URI and it working for me (it send call
to different destinations)
There will be problem if durint parallel forking u havce device behind NAT
and not... but could be avoided by having all clients working thru rtpproxy
(I do not do it yet but thinking)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jev [mailto:jev@ecad.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Vitaly Nikolaev
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] parallel forking best practice?
Hi Vitaly,
Thank you for your reply,
But do you have parallel forking working this way? So two or more phones
ring at once. As opposed to one phone ringing for N seconds, and then
another ringing (sequential forking).
Is it possible to do parallel forking with exec_dset()? I did not think
that it was.
Thanks,
-Jev
Vitaly Nikolaev wrote:
Hi,
I do not know that it is best, I even sure that it is not :) but it very
useful and very flexible to execute external application that will return
list of URI.
Why it flexible - because you can do, for example, balancing of whatever
you
use for termination all (in my case b2bua) plus I use
nagios that testing
my
b2buas/gws/voicemails and then my "routing"
script uses this info to avoid
bad destinations
Plus different features like, call return, redial, call forward, step by
step routing (like first call ring on your SIP device, if it fail it ring
on
your office phone and if it fail goes to your cell
phone and same time to
your gf cell phone :)) My script taking all this info from MSSQL database,
of course it add some delay to your call (PDD) but that the price, you can
always use few boxes with this setup in parallel (replicate) and do
redundant SQL server for fast answer
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jev
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:01 AM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] parallel forking best practice?
Hi All,
For the 0_9_0 branch, what is the 'best practice' for implementing
parallel forking?
We used to be able to point one alias at several accounts, but that
feature has regressed.
Thanks,
-Jev
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers