The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply from a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route is executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything that persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
You can try it, not sure if docs are really in sync there.
On the other hand, could be that the transaction was matching the 2xx and then practically the state of transaction changed to completed, so even doing a drop of not sending out, the transaction is still ended.
An alternative solution is using a hash table with expiration of the items matching the max timeout for transactions.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply from a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route is executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything that persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid something complex like keeping state in htable.
I did try it - the docs are correct. drop() on a >= 2xx reply does nothing in a named (TM) onreply_route[].
I really don't care if the transaction is completed internally. I just want to stop the reply going back to the UAC.
So, just wondering if there's some clever alternative idea. If not, I guess I will have to use a global onreply_route and feed it information about whether to use the drop using htable.
On October 21, 2016 5:39:04 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
You can try it, not sure if docs are really in sync there.
On the other hand, could be that the transaction was matching the 2xx and then practically the state of transaction changed to completed, so even doing a drop of not sending out, the transaction is still ended.
An alternative solution is using a hash table with expiration of the items matching the max timeout for transactions.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply from a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route is executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything that persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Oct 24-26, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
One addition that was done rather recent is execution of onsend_route for replies (it may require a core param to be set) and maybe you can drop there based on an avp -- it may be a solution if you don't care about transaction, but only not to send the sip response to the end point.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:45, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid something complex like keeping state in htable.
I did try it - the docs are correct. drop() on a >= 2xx reply does nothing in a named (TM) onreply_route[].
I really don't care if the transaction is completed internally. I just want to stop the reply going back to the UAC.
So, just wondering if there's some clever alternative idea. If not, I guess I will have to use a global onreply_route and feed it information about whether to use the drop using htable.
On October 21, 2016 5:39:04 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
You can try it, not sure if docs are really in sync there.
On the other hand, could be that the transaction was matching the 2xx and then practically the state of transaction changed to completed, so even doing a drop of not sending out, the transaction is still ended.
An alternative solution is using a hash table with expiration of the items matching the max timeout for transactions.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply from a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route is executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything that persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Oct 24-26, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
Thanks, that's a good idea!
If I use the onsend route, I can still expect the transaction life to come to an end at this point, right? If not, I need some other way of manually sunsetting transactions.
On October 21, 2016 8:23:01 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
One addition that was done rather recent is execution of onsend_route for replies (it may require a core param to be set) and maybe you can drop there based on an avp -- it may be a solution if you don't care about transaction, but only not to send the sip response to the end point.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:45, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid something complex like keeping state in
htable.
I did try it - the docs are correct. drop() on a >= 2xx reply does
nothing in a named (TM) onreply_route[].
I really don't care if the transaction is completed internally. I
just want to stop the reply going back to the UAC.
So, just wondering if there's some clever alternative idea. If not, I
guess I will have to use a global onreply_route and feed it information about whether to use the drop using htable.
On October 21, 2016 5:39:04 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
miconda@gmail.com wrote:
You can try it, not sure if docs are really in sync there.
On the other hand, could be that the transaction was matching the
2xx
and then practically the state of transaction changed to completed,
so
even doing a drop of not sending out, the transaction is still
ended.
An alternative solution is using a hash table with expiration of the items matching the max timeout for transactions.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply
from
a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route
is
executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything
that
persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Oct 24-26, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
Yes, transaction will be ended, onsend_route is executed after all transaction processing was done. There might be some error messages in the logs, but that can be eventually tuned with a small patch.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 14:30, Alex Balashov wrote:
Thanks, that's a good idea!
If I use the onsend route, I can still expect the transaction life to come to an end at this point, right? If not, I need some other way of manually sunsetting transactions.
On October 21, 2016 8:23:01 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
One addition that was done rather recent is execution of onsend_route for replies (it may require a core param to be set) and maybe you can drop there based on an avp -- it may be a solution if you don't care about transaction, but only not to send the sip response to the end point.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:45, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid something complex like keeping state in
htable.
I did try it - the docs are correct. drop() on a >= 2xx reply does
nothing in a named (TM) onreply_route[].
I really don't care if the transaction is completed internally. I
just want to stop the reply going back to the UAC.
So, just wondering if there's some clever alternative idea. If not, I
guess I will have to use a global onreply_route and feed it information about whether to use the drop using htable.
On October 21, 2016 5:39:04 AM EDT, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
miconda@gmail.com wrote:
You can try it, not sure if docs are really in sync there.
On the other hand, could be that the transaction was matching the
2xx
and then practically the state of transaction changed to completed,
so
even doing a drop of not sending out, the transaction is still
ended.
An alternative solution is using a hash table with expiration of the items matching the max timeout for transactions.
Cheers, Daniel
On 21/10/16 11:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
The core documentation says that in a named onreply_route[], only provisional replies can be drop()'d. To drop any reply, it is necessary to use a global onreply_route.
Is there any workaround for this, i.e. so I can drop a 2xx reply
from
a specific TM transaction?
The reason is, to know whether to drop it, I need access to either AVPs or, ideally, dialog variables. Since the global onreply_route
is
executed by the core, I presume I won't have access to anything
that
persists through TM there.
Thanks!
-- Alex
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Oct 24-26, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
-- Alex
-- Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
-
Alex Balashov -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla