[Serusers] parallel forking best practice?

[Mik Cheez]

I'm not sure what your external script '/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t' 
does.  In what way does it rewrite the URI?

I'm currently doing something similar, but I have to call 'revert_uri()' 
before calling exec_dset again.  Is there an advantage of doing it with 
the CC-Diversion?

Best regards


Vitaly Nikolaev wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have both working, but I call second thing: step by step routing or follow
>me feature :)
>
>That the example:
>
>In route procedure I have:
>
>append_urihf("CC-Diversion: ", "\r\n");
>exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 1");
>t_on_failure("1");
>
>in failure_route[1] I  have:
>      if (t_check_status("486")) { 
>                xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: BUSY, getroute_a_t 2 busy\n");
>                exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 busy");
>        } else if (t_check_status("408")) { 
>                xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Request timeout, getroute_a_t 2
>timeout\n");
>                exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 timeout");
>        } else if (t_check_status("404")) { 
>                xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Not found, 2 notfound\n");
>                exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 notfound");
>        } else if (t_check_status("500")) {
>                xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Not found, 2 disconnected\n");
>                exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 disconnected");
>        } else{
>                xlog("L_INFO", "%ci: Other. getroute_a_t 2 other\n");
>                exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 2 other");
>        }
>
>        append_branch();
>        t_on_failure("2");
>
>
>I execute getroute_a_t with parametr 2 that means second step and disconnect
>couse to distinct busy from other resons and make customer choose to forward
>call if busy, if no answer if something else
>
>
>In failure_route[2] I have:
>
>        exec_dset("/usr/local/ser/bin/getroute_a_t 3 other");
>        append_branch();
>        t_on_failure("3");
>
>and so on until 5 :)
>
> 
>on any step getroute can return few URI and it working for me (it send call
>to different destinations)
>
>There will be problem if durint parallel forking u havce device behind NAT
>and not... but could be avoided by having all clients working thru rtpproxy
>(I do not do it yet but thinking)
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jev [mailto:jev at ecad.org] 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:17 PM
>To: Vitaly Nikolaev
>Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
>Subject: Re: [Serusers] parallel forking best practice?
>
>Hi Vitaly,
>
>Thank you for your reply,
>
>But do you have parallel forking working this way? So two or more phones 
>ring at once. As opposed to one phone ringing for N seconds, and then 
>another ringing (sequential forking).
>
>Is it possible to do parallel forking with exec_dset()? I did not think 
>that it was.
>
>
>Thanks,
>-Jev
>
>Vitaly Nikolaev wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I do not know that it is best, I even sure that it is not :) but it very
>>useful and very flexible to execute external application that will return
>>list of URI.
>>
>>Why it flexible - because you can do, for example, balancing of whatever
>>    
>>
>you
>  
>
>>use for termination all (in my case b2bua) plus I use nagios that testing
>>    
>>
>my
>  
>
>>b2buas/gws/voicemails and then my "routing" script uses this info to avoid
>>bad destinations
>>
>>Plus different features like, call return, redial, call forward, step by
>>step routing (like first call ring on your SIP device, if it fail it ring
>>    
>>
>on
>  
>
>>your office phone and if it fail goes to your cell phone and same time to
>>your gf cell phone :)) My script taking all this info from MSSQL database,
>>of course it add some delay to your call (PDD) but that the price, you can
>>always use few boxes with this setup in parallel (replicate) and do
>>redundant SQL server for fast answer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
>>Behalf Of Jev
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:01 AM
>>To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>Subject: [Serusers] parallel forking best practice?
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>For the 0_9_0 branch, what is the 'best practice' for implementing 
>>parallel forking?
>>
>>We used to be able to point one alias at several accounts, but that 
>>feature has regressed.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Jev
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
>  
>