20 Apr
2020
20 Apr
'20
10:31 a.m.
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints in
parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK I
guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to it in
case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I need to
keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio
have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
Thanks,
Ivan
20 Apr
20 Apr
11:13 a.m.
On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints in
parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK I
guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to it in
case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I need to
keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio
have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the cool details!
/O
11:44 a.m.
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing any instructions on how to deal with
forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can result in multiple dialogs that
are part of the same original call. I couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal
with these multiple dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the
application. Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE priorities or
parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a mechanism for forking in
parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is not part of RFC3261, but is built on top
of it), I’m wondering whether Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for
dealing with forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson
<oej(a)edvina.net> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net <mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints in
parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK I
guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to it in
case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I need to
keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio
have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> 
12:48 p.m.
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section 16.7(10) of RFC 3261 deal
with it (sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing any
instructions on how
to deal with forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can
result in multiple dialogs that are part of the same original call. I
couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal with these multiple
dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the application.
Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE
priorities or parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a
mechanism for forking in parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is
not part of RFC3261, but is built on top of it), I’m wondering whether
Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for dealing with
forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple
endpoints in parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first
(first to respond with 200 OK I guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking (
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()”
+ “t_relay()” command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs
in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point
me to it in case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over
forked requests. Do I need to keep track of the branches myself and cancel
others when first succeeds or does Kamailio have some kind of setting for
implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the
cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
1:27 p.m.
( and is implemented in automatic: when receive the 200 OK for a branch
(the winning one), Kamailio sends CANCEL to the other branches )
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section
16.7(10) of RFC 3261
deal with it (sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net>
wrote:
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing
any instructions on how
to deal with forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can
result in multiple dialogs that are part of the same original call. I
couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal with these multiple
dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the application.
Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE
priorities or parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a
mechanism for forking in parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is
not part of RFC3261, but is built on top of it), I’m wondering whether
Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for dealing with
forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple
endpoints in parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first
(first to respond with 200 OK I guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking (
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()”
+ “t_relay()” command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs
in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point
me to it in case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over
forked requests. Do I need to keep track of the branches myself and cancel
others when first succeeds or does Kamailio have some kind of setting for
implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the
cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
3:28 p.m.
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section, Giovanni! I was searching RFC for the
“fork” and “merge” keywords so I never got even close to this part of RFC.
On 20 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Giovanni Maruzzelli
<gmaruzz(a)gmail.com <mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
( and is implemented in automatic: when receive the 200 OK for a branch (the winning
one), Kamailio sends CANCEL to the other branches )
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section 16.7(10) of RFC 3261 deal with it
(sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net
<mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing any instructions on how to deal with
forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can result in multiple dialogs that
are part of the same original call. I couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal
with these multiple dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the
application. Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE priorities or
parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a mechanism for forking in
parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is not part of RFC3261, but is built on top
of it), I’m wondering whether Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for
dealing with forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson
<oej(a)edvina.net <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net <mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints in
parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK I
guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to it in
case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I need to
keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio
have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> 
3:50 p.m.
Shouldn’t 183 also be a “final” response in regards to branching?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 14:32, Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section,
Giovanni! I was searching
RFC for the “fork” and “merge” keywords so I never got even close to this
part of RFC.
On 20 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
( and is implemented in automatic: when receive the 200 OK for a branch
(the winning one), Kamailio sends CANCEL to the other branches )
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Regards,
David Villasmil
email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com
phone: +34669448337
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section
16.7(10) of RFC 3261
deal with it (sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net>
wrote:
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing
any instructions on how
to deal with forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can
result in multiple dialogs that are part of the same original call. I
couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal with these multiple
dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the application.
Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE
priorities or parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a
mechanism for forking in parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is
not part of RFC3261, but is built on top of it), I’m wondering whether
Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for dealing with
forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to
multiple endpoints in parallel but only maintain the branch that responds
first (first to respond with 200 OK I guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking (
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()”
+ “t_relay()” command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs
in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please
point me to it in case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have
over forked requests. Do I need to keep track of the branches myself and
cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio have some kind of
setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all
the cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
3:55 p.m.
Just thought of a follow up question - is it possible to find out which of the branches
Kamailio chose as the winner? According to RFC multiple 200 OK could arrive before CANCEL
is sent. Do I need to look for an outgoing ACK to know for sure which branch was chosen
for sure or is there a way I could “catch” a winning branch through some sort of custom
branch route (thinking along the lines of “t_on_branch_success”)?
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 15:28, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section, Giovanni! I was searching RFC for the
“fork” and “merge” keywords so I never got even close to this part of RFC.
On 20 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Giovanni Maruzzelli
<gmaruzz(a)gmail.com <mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
( and is implemented in automatic: when receive the 200 OK for a branch (the winning
one), Kamailio sends CANCEL to the other branches )
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section 16.7(10) of RFC 3261 deal with it
(sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net
<mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing any instructions on how to deal with
forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can result in multiple dialogs that
are part of the same original call. I couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal
with these multiple dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the
application. Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE priorities or
parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a mechanism for forking in
parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is not part of RFC3261, but is built on top
of it), I’m wondering whether Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for
dealing with forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson
<oej(a)edvina.net <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net <mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints in
parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK I
guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to it in
case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I need to
keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does Kamailio
have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
3:59 p.m.
That is the reply route.
Start testing and adding logging.
The case with multiple 200 OK is something we have tested many times. The proxy should NOT
try to do anything in that case, just
forward the multiple 200 OK to the caller and let the UA decide what to do. The UA needs
to ACK both, and if it can’t somehow
handle multiple calls, send a BYE to one of them.
/O
On 20 Apr 2020, at 15:55, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Just thought of a follow up question - is it possible to find out which of the branches
Kamailio chose as the winner? According to RFC multiple 200 OK could arrive before CANCEL
is sent. Do I need to look for an outgoing ACK to know for sure which branch was chosen
for sure or is there a way I could “catch” a winning branch through some sort of custom
branch route (thinking along the lines of “t_on_branch_success”)?
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 15:28, Ivan Ribakov
<i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net <mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section, Giovanni! I was searching RFC for the
“fork” and “merge” keywords so I never got even close to this part of RFC.
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users On 20 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Giovanni Maruzzelli
<gmaruzz(a)gmail.com <mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
( and is implemented in automatic: when receive the 200 OK for a branch (the winning
one), Kamailio sends CANCEL to the other branches )
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gmaruzz@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maybe is not very explicit, but I believe section 16.7(10) of RFC 3261 deal with it
(sends CANCEL to branches)
-giovanni
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net
<mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
As far as I understand, RFC3261 is not providing any instructions on how to deal with
forked INVITES specifically. It just says that forking can result in multiple dialogs that
are part of the same original call. I couldn’t find any prescriptions on how/when to deal
with these multiple dialogs specifically which makes me think it depends on the
application. Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
So, in the same way as RFC3261 is not talking about forked INVITE priorities or
parallelism, but Kamailio (TM module) is providing a mechanism for forking in
parallel/serial modes (advanced feature that is not part of RFC3261, but is built on top
of it), I’m wondering whether Kamailio (TM module) is providing any advanced features for
dealing with forked INVITE responses.
Thanks,
Ivan
On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:13, Olle E. Johansson
<oej(a)edvina.net <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2020, at 10:31, Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net
<mailto:i.ribakov@zaleos.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple endpoints
in parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first (first to respond with 200 OK
I guess).
>
> I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking
(https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…
<https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_forking>)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()” + “t_relay()”
command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs in parallel.
>
> What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point me to
it in case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over forked requests. Do I
need to keep track of the branches myself and cancel others when first succeeds or does
Kamailio have some kind of setting for implementing such behaviour?
It’s all implemented according to the RFC 3261 where you can read all the cool details!
/O
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
--
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli
OpenTelecom.IT
cell: +39 347 266 56 18
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
<https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> 
21 Apr
21 Apr
1:05 a.m.
It should be noted at a rather general level that parallel forking is
replete with race conditions, and is a nasty and unwieldy aspect of SIP.
The pain of using parallel forking to implement something like "ring
groups", for example, is often not worth the savings in architectural
complexity.
If you have some other means of accomplishing what you want to
accomplish, e.g. using a B2BUA to generate multiple independent call
legs simultaneously ringing multiple destinations, I strongly advise you
to go with that instead.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
12:49 p.m.
Hi Alex,
Isn't the option of generating multiple call legs with a B2BUA more subject
to dead air/ghost calls than letting kamailio handle parallel forking?
Nuno
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:06 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>
wrote:
It should be noted at a rather general level that
parallel forking is
replete with race conditions, and is a nasty and unwieldy aspect of SIP.
The pain of using parallel forking to implement something like "ring
groups", for example, is often not worth the savings in architectural
complexity.
If you have some other means of accomplishing what you want to
accomplish, e.g. using a B2BUA to generate multiple independent call
legs simultaneously ringing multiple destinations, I strongly advise you
to go with that instead.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
*Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any
attachments may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any
attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or
any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the
contents to any other person. Thank you.*
5:33 p.m.
The main gain in using a B2BUA is that you take responsibility for
terminating the extra call legs, it is as good as your B2BUA will be, by
delegating the responsibility upstream you can not always be sure it is
handled properly.
I wonder if Kamailio should consider evolving in B2BUA support.
I am expecting to receive tomatoes.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:50 AM Nuno Ferreira <nferreira(a)fuze.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
Isn't the option of generating multiple call legs with a B2BUA more
subject to dead air/ghost calls than letting kamailio handle parallel
forking?
Nuno
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:06 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>
wrote:
It should be noted at a rather general level that
parallel forking is
replete with race conditions, and is a nasty and unwieldy aspect of SIP.
The pain of using parallel forking to implement something like "ring
groups", for example, is often not worth the savings in architectural
complexity.
If you have some other means of accomplishing what you want to
accomplish, e.g. using a B2BUA to generate multiple independent call
legs simultaneously ringing multiple destinations, I strongly advise you
to go with that instead.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
*Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any
attachments may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any
attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or
any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the
contents to any other person. Thank you.*
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
20 Apr
20 Apr
3:58 p.m.
You are right that this is not very explicit.
Kamailio will cancel automatically once one branch connects but if it
failed to cancel (meaning other branches connects)
The originiting UAC will have to disconnect the extra calls.
Which is something that is handled properly by most if not all.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 01:31 Ivan Ribakov <i.ribakov(a)zaleos.net> wrote:
Hi all,
What I’m trying to achieve is to have Kamailio fork an INVITE to multiple
endpoints in parallel but only maintain the branch that responds first
(first to respond with 200 OK I guess).
I’ve read the TM module documentation on forking (
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#tm.serial_fork…)
and as far as I understood a combination of “seturi()” + “append_branch()”
+ “t_relay()” command calls will allow me to send multiple forked INVITEs
in parallel.
What I couldn't find information about in the documentation (please point
me to it in case I missed it) is what controls (if any) do I have over
forked requests. Do I need to keep track of the branches myself and cancel
others when first succeeds or does Kamailio have some kind of setting for
implementing such behaviour?
Thanks,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
1473
days inactive
1474
days old
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Alex Balashov -
David Villasmil -
Giovanni Maruzzelli -
Ivan Ribakov -
Julien Chavanton -
Nuno Ferreira -
Olle E. Johansson