9 Sep
2008
9 Sep
'08
2:42 p.m.
I'm having a problem with the route sections below. When my proxy
receives an Invite to proxy to a PSTN gateway, the proxy is sending 2
invites very fast to the gateway in the first route block which ends up
creating a mess with the gateway.
Either I have something wrong in the routing code or I have an
SER/OS/hardware timing problem.
Any suggestions ?
route[1] {
xlog("L_INFO", "Sending to route 1\n%mb\n");
rewritehostport ("1.1.1.1:5060");
append_branch();
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
}
failure_route[1] {
if(t_check_status("487")) {
break;
}
xlog( "L_INFO", "failure on route 1\n%mb\n");
append_branch();
route(2);
break;
}
route[2] {
xlog("L_INFO", "Sending to route 2\n%mb\n");
rewritehostport ("2.2.2.2:5060");
append_branch();
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
}
failure_route[2] {
if(t_check_status("487")) {
break;
}
xlog( "L_INFO", "failure on route 2\n%mb\n");
append_branch();
route(3);
break;
}
route[3] {
xlog("L_INFO", "Sending to rout 3\n%mb\n");
rewritehostport ("3.3.3.3:5060");
t_relay();
}
Thanks,
Matt
9 Sep
9 Sep
3:20 p.m.
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew McGuire escribió:
I'm having a problem with the route sections
below. When my proxy
receives an Invite to proxy to a PSTN gateway, the proxy is sending 2
invites very fast to the gateway in the first route block which ends up
creating a mess with the gateway.
Either I have something wrong in the routing code or I have an
SER/OS/hardware timing problem.
You have a big problem in your code since you are using append_branch() with
no reason.
append_branch() adds a new branch, this is, it "clones" the current request.
Later you could modify each branch using on_branch_route but I think you
don't need it.
You should delete the append_branch in route[1] and route[2].
append_branch() is needed in failure route since the previous branches ended
with a failure result ([3456]XX code), that is why you need to create a *new*
one. But in your code there is not justification to use append_branch() in
route[1] and route[2].
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
4:06 p.m.
El Tuesday 09 September 2008 19:42:05 Matthew McGuire escribió:
I'm having a problem with the route sections
below. When my proxy
receives an Invite to proxy to a PSTN gateway, the proxy is sending 2
invites very fast to the gateway in the first route block which ends up
creating a mess with the gateway.
Either I have something wrong in the routing code or I have an
SER/OS/hardware timing problem.
Any suggestions ?
Yes, why are you calling append_branch() on route blocks? I guess you have
missundestood how it works and here it must be used.
Remove all those append_branch() calls and your gateway will be happier ..
Best regards
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual S.L.
5:25 p.m.
Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
Thanks,
matt
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
El Tuesday 09 September 2008 19:42:05 Matthew McGuire
escribió:
I'm having a problem with the route sections
below. When my proxy
receives an Invite to proxy to a PSTN gateway, the proxy is sending 2
invites very fast to the gateway in the first route block which ends up
creating a mess with the gateway.
Either I have something wrong in the routing code or I have an
SER/OS/hardware timing problem.
Any suggestions ?
Yes, why are you calling append_branch() on route blocks? I guess you have
missundestood how it works and here it must be used.
Remove all those append_branch() calls and your gateway will be happier ..
Best regards
5:40 p.m.
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew McGuire escribió:
Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and route[2] are
completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no more.
What you mean with "rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes"?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
11:28 p.m.
I understand regarding append_branch in the route blocks being wrong.
However, without it, here is what a call looks like if the first gateway
fails:
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, proceed to route(2)
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, proceed to route(3)
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, give up.
For some reason, the gateway ip address in the 2nd and 3rd invites
doesn't get altered by rewritehostport. Any guidance is most appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew McGuire
escribió:
Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and route[2] are
completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no more.
What you mean with "rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes"?
10 Sep
10 Sep
3:56 a.m.
Hi, please, use text plain instead of formatted and superbig HTML text in
bold. ;)
El Wednesday 10 September 2008 05:28:27 Matthew McGuire escribió:
I understand regarding append_branch in the route
blocks being wrong.
However, without it, here is what a call looks like if the first gateway
fails:
Thus, there is something wrong more, but please, take in mind that your usage
of append_branch is completely wrong.
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, proceed to route(2)
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, proceed to route(3)
Invite ------> 1.1.1.1
Fail <------ 1.1.1.1
OK, give up.
For some reason, the gateway ip address in the 2nd and 3rd invites
doesn't get altered by rewritehostport. Any guidance is most appreciated.
Well, it must work but try logging it. Also, instead of
using "rewritehostport" use:
$rd = "2.2.2.2";
xlog("L_INFO","--- RURI now is $ru ---\n");
And show what the xlogs saysin each route and failure route.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
4:01 a.m.
El Wednesday 10 September 2008 09:56:10 Iñaki Baz Castillo escribió:
Thus, there is something wrong more, but please, take
in mind that your
usage of append_branch is completely wrong.
Also, why do you use "break"? It's completely WRONG. Read the doc:
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/core-cookbook:1.3.x#break
---------
break()
Since v0.10.0-dev3, 'break' can no longer be used to stop the execution of a
route. The only place to use is to end a 'case' block in a 'switch'
statement. 'return' must be now used instead of old 'break'.
'return' and 'break' have now a similar meaning as in c/shell.
--------
Use "exit" instead:
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/core-cookbook:1.3.x#exit
Probably your problem is related to this.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
2:44 a.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew McGuire
escribió:
Route[2] is called from the failure_route. Thus, the append_branch in
route[2] is necessary.
klaus
Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and route[2] are
completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no more.
What you mean with "rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes"?
3:01 a.m.
El Wednesday 10 September 2008 07:44:49 Klaus Darilion escribió:
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
But it's wrongly called, because he calls append_branch() on failure_route[1]
BEFORE calling route[2] and then inside route[2] he calls append_branch again,
so it's called twice.
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual S.L.
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew
McGuire escribió:
Route[2] is called from the failure_route. Thus, the append_branch in
route[2] is necessary. Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and route[2]
are completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no
more.
4:40 a.m.
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana schrieb:
El Wednesday 10 September 2008 07:44:49 Klaus Darilion
escribió:
Yes. That is true.
The logic for the failure route handling is:
1. set the new destination (e.g. rewriteuri ....)
2. append branch
3. t_relay
It does not matter if this happens directly in the failure route or in
another route which is caklled by the failure route.
regards
klaus
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
But it's wrongly called, because he calls append_branch() on failure_route[1]
BEFORE calling route[2] and then inside route[2] he calls append_branch again,
so it's called twice. El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew
McGuire escribió:
Route[2] is called from the failure_route. Thus, the append_branch in
route[2] is necessary. Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and
route[2]
are completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no
more.
3:49 a.m.
El Wednesday 10 September 2008 08:44:49 Klaus Darilion escribió:
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
No no, he calls append_branch in failure_route[1] and later in route[2]. He is
wrong.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
El Martes, 9 de Septiembre de 2008, Matthew
McGuire escribió:
Route[2] is called from the failure_route. Thus, the append_branch in
route[2] is necessary. Thanks for the pointers.
When I remove append_branch from the route blocks, for some reason,
rewritehostport fails in subsequent routes. No errors show up in the
log, but the call will proceed through each block, traceable by the log
statements, but the host ip address on the new invites is the same as
the first invite.
I just can sure you that these append_branch() in route[1] and route[2]
are completely wrongs since they are duplicating the original request, no
more.
5850
days inactive
5851
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion -
Matthew McGuire -
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana