[Users] failure route problem

Juha Heinanen jh at tutpro.com
Wed Aug 24 09:48:00 CEST 2005

Klaus Darilion writes:

 > I wonder if there is any reason at all, why a failure route will be 
 > executed in case of the caller cancels the call. Thus, another option 
 > would be to remove execution of the failure route if the caller cancels 
 > the call.

i don't like these kind of exceptions.  a failure route will be
definition be called if failure response is received.  i have in my
failure route test

	if (t_check_status("487")) {

which makes 487 a no-op and i don't have experienced any problems with

 > If we still want to execute the failure route, having the call canceled 
 > by the caller should be visible in a status variable, which is 
 > explicitly set by the caller action, not by any reply code from the 
 > clients. Imagine a broken client which sends 4xx instead of 487 for any 
 > reason. If this is the last response, the failure route again won't work 
 > if it checks for status 487.

coping with all kinds of broken clients in the proxy makes life very

whatever you decide to do make sure it is backwards compatible with
current behavior, i.e., introduce a new module option or something.
this is very dedicated stuff and i don't want to get into a position
where i need to re-test my ser.cfg.

-- juha

More information about the sr-users mailing list