[Users] failure route problem

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Klaus,

maybe adding to t_check_status() a second parameter to tell the check 
scheme:
        UAS reply code (code to be fwd to UAC, the min one)
        UAC reply code (branch codes) - last received;
                                                             - any of them

comments?

regards,
bogdan

Klaus Darilion wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I have a problem with my failure route. In the failure route, I send 
> the call to voicemail, except the call is CANCELED by the caller:
>
> failure_route[1] {
>   if(t_check_status("487")) {
>     xlog("L_INFO","caller cancelled call, no voicemail needed...\n");
>     exit;
>   }
>   route(4); # route to voicemail
> }
>
> The problem is, when a call is forked and one of the destinations is 
> busy or has any other reasons to not accept the call.
>
>                /-------- <-486 phone1
>               /
> caller ----------------- <-488 phone2
>               \
>                \-------- <-487 phone3
>
> In the above case, phone1 and 2 immedately response with an error 
> message. Then several seconds later, the caller hangs up and now 
> phone3 sends 487.
>
> If I now check the status in the failure route it will be 486 (the 
> lowest one). Also any other algorithm (the highest one, the first one, 
> the last one) would be ambiguous. Thus, deciding if the call will be 
> sent to voicemail or not is not possible using t_check_status.
>
> AFAIK there is no other method to check the status of the transaction 
> in the failure route. IMO this is an issue which should be solved.
>
> I suggest setting the status explicitly to "487" if the transaction 
> was cancelled by the caller, independent of the resonse status 
> received from the phones.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>