Hi Gang
I guess, I don't completely understand who to properly perform serial branching.
I did try to follow the examples from:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/tm.html#tm.f.t_next_cont...
This is, stripped down, the relevant config used.
modparam("tm", "contacts_avp", "tm_contacts") modparam("tm", "contact_flows_avp", "tm_contact_flows")
route[LOCATION] { lookup_to_dset("location", "$var(lookupuri)");
if (!t_load_contacts(1)) { xlog("L_ERR", "$cfg(route): ######### load_contacts failed\n"); sl_send_reply("500", "Server Internal Error - Cannot load contacts"); exit; }
xlog("L_INFO", "$cfg(route): Contacts loaded: $cnt($xavp(tm_contacts))\n");
=> Confirms, there is more than one contact loaded.
if (!t_next_contacts()) { send_reply("480", "Not registered"); }
t_set_fr(5000,1500); # Set 5 second timeout for LAB testing to quickly try the next contact.
t_on_branch("BR_TO_CUST"); t_on_branch_failure("BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE"); exit; }
event_route[tm:branch-failure:BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE] { xlog("BRANCH FAILED $T_reply_code to $rm message\n"); t_on_branch("BR_TO_CUST"); t_on_branch_failure("BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE"); if (t_next_contact_flow()) { xlog("BRANCH FAILED, Try Next\n"); t_relay(); } else { xlog("L_INFO", "No more flows\n"); t_reply("408", "Branch Timeout"); exit; } }
What happens is:
INVITE is sent to the first contact, who is replying RINGING. After 5 seconds the timeout is reached and the branch-failure route engaged.
Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: ERROR: <script>: BRANCH FAILED 408 to INVITE message Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: INFO: <script>: No more flows Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: CRITICAL: tm [tm.c:1554]: ki_t_reply(): w_t_reply entered in unsupported mode
To my understanding, t_next_contact_flow() should have loaded the next ds, but this does not seem to happen.
What am I missing?
Am Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:15:28 +0100 schrieb Benoît Panizzon benoit.panizzon@imp.ch:
t_on_branch("BR_TO_CUST"); t_on_branch_failure("BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE"); route(RELAY); # of course ;-) exit;
Are you intending to use `t_next_contact_flow()` rather than `t_next_contact()`? There's not enough data here to know what your contacts look like. The definition of `t_next_contact_flow()` is:
Function adds a new branch to the request that includes the first contact from contact_flows_avp that matches the +sip.instance value of the flow that has failed.
If your contacts have separate +sip.instance values, then it would be expected that this would fail. Unless you know this to be the case use `t_next_contact()` in a failure route (as opposed to a branch failure route).
Regards, Kaufman
________________________________ From: Benoît Panizzon via sr-users sr-users@lists.kamailio.org Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 9:15 AM To: sr-users@lists.kamailio.org sr-users@lists.kamailio.org Cc: Benoît Panizzon benoit.panizzon@imp.ch Subject: [SR-Users] Need help with serial branching using: t_load_contacts(1)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gang
I guess, I don't completely understand who to properly perform serial branching.
I did try to follow the examples from:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kamail...https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/tm.html#tm.f.t_next_contacts
This is, stripped down, the relevant config used.
modparam("tm", "contacts_avp", "tm_contacts") modparam("tm", "contact_flows_avp", "tm_contact_flows")
route[LOCATION] { lookup_to_dset("location", "$var(lookupuri)");
if (!t_load_contacts(1)) { xlog("L_ERR", "$cfg(route): ######### load_contacts failed\n"); sl_send_reply("500", "Server Internal Error - Cannot load contacts"); exit; }
xlog("L_INFO", "$cfg(route): Contacts loaded: $cnt($xavp(tm_contacts))\n");
=> Confirms, there is more than one contact loaded.
if (!t_next_contacts()) { send_reply("480", "Not registered"); }
t_set_fr(5000,1500); # Set 5 second timeout for LAB testing to quickly try the next contact.
t_on_branch("BR_TO_CUST"); t_on_branch_failure("BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE"); exit; }
event_route[tm:branch-failure:BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE] { xlog("BRANCH FAILED $T_reply_code to $rm message\n"); t_on_branch("BR_TO_CUST"); t_on_branch_failure("BR_TO_CUST_FAILURE"); if (t_next_contact_flow()) { xlog("BRANCH FAILED, Try Next\n"); t_relay(); } else { xlog("L_INFO", "No more flows\n"); t_reply("408", "Branch Timeout"); exit; } }
What happens is:
INVITE is sent to the first contact, who is replying RINGING. After 5 seconds the timeout is reached and the branch-failure route engaged.
Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: ERROR: <script>: BRANCH FAILED 408 to INVITE message Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: INFO: <script>: No more flows Jan 17 15:01:15 dev-cpereg01 kamailio[3599432]: CRITICAL: tm [tm.c:1554]: ki_t_reply(): w_t_reply entered in unsupported mode
To my understanding, t_next_contact_flow() should have loaded the next ds, but this does not seem to happen.
What am I missing?
-- Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar -- I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden ______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imp.ch%...http://www.imp.ch/ ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions -- sr-users@lists.kamailio.org To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! r
Hi Ben
Are you intending to use `t_next_contact_flow()` rather than `t_next_contact()`? There's not enough data here to know what your contacts look like. The definition of `t_next_contact_flow()` is:
Function adds a new branch to the request that includes the first contact from contact_flows_avp that matches the +sip.instance value of the flow that has failed.
If your contacts have separate +sip.instance values, then it would be expected that this would fail. Unless you know this to be the case use `t_next_contact()` in a failure route (as opposed to a branch failure route).
Indeed I did not at all understand the +sip.instance part and somehow from the example I understood that I had to use t_branch_failure.
I changed my config to use a 'normal' failure route and call t_next_contact() within that failure route. This now behaves as expected!
Thanks a lot for hinting me the right direction!
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon-
-
Ben Kaufman -
Benoît Panizzon