21 Oct
2005
21 Oct
'05
1:12 a.m.
I have an unusual need: If a contact in the usrloc database is
unreachable for any reason, I must immediately delete it from the usrloc
database. I know how to do the deletion, but I don't know the right way
to write my configuration script.
Below is the script that I want to write. But I think it won't work,
because I think it's illegal for a failure_route block to call a route()
command. (Am I correct about that?)
Can anyone tell me what I should do instead of the following?
Thank you in advance!
Tim
==============
route {
[...irrelevant stuff omitted...]
if (method==INVITE) {
route(1);
}
}
route[1] {
if (lookup("location")) {
t_on_failure("99");
t_relay();
} else {
t_reply("404","Not Found");
}
}
failure_route[99] {
delete_location_from_usrloc(); # I will write this function.
route(1);
}
==============
21 Oct
21 Oct
8:37 a.m.
route can be called from failure_route. Just make sure your function is safe
(i.e a failure_route will on a parallell fork be called several times with
different messages)
g-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Klein" <tkpublic(a)timklein.fastmail.fm>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 01:12 AM
Subject: [Serusers] How to avoid calling route() in a failure_route block?
I have an unusual need: If a contact in the usrloc
database is
unreachable for any reason, I must immediately delete it from the usrloc
database. I know how to do the deletion, but I don't know the right way
to write my configuration script.
Below is the script that I want to write. But I think it won't work,
because I think it's illegal for a failure_route block to call a route()
command. (Am I correct about that?)
Can anyone tell me what I should do instead of the following?
Thank you in advance!
Tim
==============
route {
[...irrelevant stuff omitted...]
if (method==INVITE) {
route(1);
}
}
route[1] {
if (lookup("location")) {
t_on_failure("99");
t_relay();
} else {
t_reply("404","Not Found");
}
}
failure_route[99] {
delete_location_from_usrloc(); # I will write this function.
route(1);
}
==============
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
24 Oct
24 Oct
5:33 p.m.
Greger,
Thank you very much for your help! The documentation says only a few
types of actions are legal in failure_route blocks, and route()
commands are not listed among them. I'm happy to know that route()
commands are OK there though, since that makes some kinds of "retry"
strategies easy to program.
Tim
route can be called from failure_route. Just make sure
your function
is safe (i.e a failure_route will on a parallell fork be called
several times with different messages)
g-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Klein"
<tkpublic(a)timklein.fastmail.fm>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 01:12 AM
Subject: [Serusers] How to avoid calling route() in a failure_route block?
>I have an unusual need: If a contact in the usrloc database is
>unreachable for any reason, I must immediately delete it from the usrloc
>database. I know how to do the deletion, but I don't know the right way
>to write my configuration script.
>
>Below is the script that I want to write. But I think it won't work,
>because I think it's illegal for a failure_route block to call a route()
>command. (Am I correct about that?)
>
>Can anyone tell me what I should do instead of the following?
>
>Thank you in advance!
>
>Tim
>
>==============
>
>route {
>
> [...irrelevant stuff omitted...]
>
>if (method==INVITE) {
>route(1);
>}
>}
>
>route[1] {
> if (lookup("location")) {
> t_on_failure("99");
> t_relay();
> } else {
> t_reply("404","Not Found");
> }
>}
>
>failure_route[99] {
>delete_location_from_usrloc(); # I will write this function.
>route(1);
>}
>
>==============
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6:17 p.m.
On 10/24/05 18:33, Tim Klein wrote:
Greger,
Thank you very much for your help! The documentation says only a few
types of actions are legal in failure_route blocks, and route()
commands are not listed among them. I'm happy to know that route()
commands are OK there though, since that makes some kinds of "retry"
strategies easy to program.
there might be problems when calling a route() from a
failure_route, if
the functions from the route block are not legal in failure_route
blocks. The check done in SER does not test the top route type, but
current route type. You can port from OpenSER the '-C' option which does
such check and should avoid having troubles in this situation.
Daniel
Tim
route can be called from failure_route. Just make
sure your function
is safe (i.e a failure_route will on a parallell fork be called
several times with different messages)
g-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Klein"
<tkpublic(a)timklein.fastmail.fm>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 01:12 AM
Subject: [Serusers] How to avoid calling route() in a failure_route
block?
> I have an unusual need: If a contact in the usrloc database is
> unreachable for any reason, I must immediately delete it from the
> usrloc
> database. I know how to do the deletion, but I don't know the right
> way
> to write my configuration script.
>
> Below is the script that I want to write. But I think it won't work,
> because I think it's illegal for a failure_route block to call a
> route()
> command. (Am I correct about that?)
>
> Can anyone tell me what I should do instead of the following?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Tim
>
> ==============
>
> route {
>
> [...irrelevant stuff omitted...]
>
> if (method==INVITE) {
> route(1);
> }
> }
>
> route[1] {
> if (lookup("location")) {
> t_on_failure("99");
> t_relay();
> } else {
> t_reply("404","Not Found");
> }
> }
>
> failure_route[99] {
> delete_location_from_usrloc(); # I will write this function.
> route(1);
> }
>
> ==============
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6932
days inactive
6936
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Greger V. Teigre -
Tim Klein