[Serdev] [BUG] Created: (SER-73) Better branch picking algorithm

[Greger V. Teigre]

:-) I agree, on your own...
g-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Atle Samuelsen" <clona at cyberhouse.no>
To: "Greger V. Teigre" <greger at teigre.com>
Cc: <serdev at lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 08:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Serdev] [BUG] Created: (SER-73) Better branch picking 
algorithm


> Hi Greger,
>
> I see your perspective, What I ment, was to make it only changeable as a
> module parameter, witch either could be added as "if changed, no
> ser-help will be given" or something like that.
>
> but, from a support perspective, it's insaine to make it configurable
>
> - Atle
>
>
> * Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com> [050922 19:46]:
>> Sounds good, but does the RFC really open up room for so much variation
>> (yes, I read the excerpt)?  I understand that there may be situations 
>> where
>> different handling of branch codes is good, but from an onsip.org
>> perspective there are already too many ways users can create new problems
>> for themselves (not realizing the implications of changes they do).
>>    So, I would suggest only allowing different priorities through code
>> changes and not ser.cfg module parameters :-)
>> g-)
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Atle Samuelsen" <clona at cyberhouse.no>
>> To: "Martin Koenig" <martin.koenig at toplink.de>
>> Cc: <serdev at lists.iptel.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 06:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Serdev] [BUG] Created: (SER-73) Better branch picking
>> algorithm
>>
>>
>> >Hi Jan and Martin,
>> >
>> >how about making the sorting somewhat possible to define, maybe as a
>> >module parameter?
>> >
>> >This ways, it could be choosen by the "admins".
>> >
>> >
>> >-Atle
>> >
>> >* Martin Koenig <martin.koenig at toplink.de> [050921 17:54]:
>> >>Hello Jan,
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: serdev-bounces at lists.iptel.org
>> >>> [mailto:serdev-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak (JIRA)
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:28 PM
>> >>> To: serdev at lists.iptel.org
>> >>> Subject: [Serdev] [BUG] Created: (SER-73) Better branch
>> >>> picking algorithm
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Branch picking algorithm (draft):
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) 200 OK
>> >>> 2) local 487 (triggered by incoming CANCEL messages)
>> >>> 3) 6xx
>> >>> 4) Lowest response class
>> >>>
>> >>> Within 4xx class:
>> >>> 1) 401 (Unauthorized)
>> >>> 2) 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
>> >>> 3) 415 (Unsupported Media Type)
>> >>> 4) 423 (Interval Too Brief)
>> >>> 5) 484 (Address Incomplete)
>> >>>
>> >>> the rest in the order of their response codes.
>> >>
>> >>May I suggest to give priority also to responses like 486 (User Busy) 
>> >>and
>> >>480 (Temporarliy Not Available) over i.e. 404 (Not Found).
>> >>
>> >>This is important for PSTN gatewaying.
>> >>
>> >>GW -> SER -> REGISTRAR1 -> User (responds 486)
>> >>          -> REGISTRAR2 (responds 404)
>> >>
>> >>Ser creates two branches to two registrars. Now obviously the Gateway
>> >>initiating the call should receive the 486 (resulting in User Busy 
>> >>Tone)
>> >>rather than 404 (resulting in Unallocated Number Announcement).
>> >>
>> >>Or maybe it would make sense after all to forward the response codes in
>> >>descending order of the response codes?
>> >>
>> >>What do you guys think?
>> >>
>> >>Best regards,
>> >>Martin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Serdev mailing list
>> >>serdev at lists.iptel.org
>> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
>> >>
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Serdev mailing list
>> >serdev at lists.iptel.org
>> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
>> >
>>
>>
>