hi,
I´ve never used enum in this way, but, ive rather often done failure_route -> route to do other stuff.. Like, It´s happend I need to send a 181.. or other call-forwarding related stuff :) so, even while it´s ugly,, it works ;)
- Atle
* Andreas Granig agranig@sipwise.com [070712 12:52]:
Hi,
Well, I do this for years now (jumping right back into routes for processing call-forward-busy etc.) without any problems. Should I care? :o)
Andreas
JF wrote:
Thanks. The issue here is what kind of "Dragons" will be awaked in TM if I do that... JF On 7/12/07, Atle Samuelsen clona@cyberhouse.no wrote:
Hi Jf,
There is one hack you can do.. wich would allow you do to a enumquery.. but, it?s not nice..
in failure_route, call a regular route. and in the reuglar route do a enum_query. It works I think (not tried it) but it?s not nice.
this way, you will "skip" the extra record_rotue etc..
- Atle
- JF jfkavaka@gmail.com [070712 12:09]:
So, if I want to perform some less simple (e.g. enum_query) processing on failed requests, I should loop the request through SER again and do it in request route?
Not a very nice way to solve it. One more Record-Route, bigger message... parsing the whole thing again.
Andrei, what exactly is the problem regarding long processing in failure route, and what could be done to fix it?
Thanks, JF
On 7/11/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
At 21:22 11/07/2007, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote: > At 16:41 11/07/2007, JF wrote: > > > >Is there any particular reason why enum_query cannot be called from > >FAILURE_ROUTE? > > Not sure. I think it is possible to turn it on but possibly ENUM's processing > latency may conflict with the failure_route located in the middle of > transaction > processing and lead to some blocknig conditions, current TM > maintainer, Andrei, will > certainly know better.
In short: There may be dragons there.
Anyways, I am not sure what you want to do, but you can usually skip the problem by fixing the Request-URI and sprialing the call to yourself.
For instance, if call forwarding is what you're after, instead of re-setting the target and just running processing again, you can just stuff the URI you want to forward to in the Request-URI and call t_relay() (don't forget the append_branch() if in a failure_route).
As a rule, keep failure and onreply routes simple. Actually, as a rule, keep your config simple (Though simple does not necessarly mean short).
Indeed: KISS applies to ser.cfg very well.
-jiri
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users