[Serusers] About the failure route problem
Greger V. Teigre
greger at teigre.com
Thu Sep 7 09:37:57 CEST 2006
Andrey,
calling a route from failure route is quite allright, sometimes even
needed as some commands are not allowed in failure route...
g-)
Andrey Kouprianov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've never seen this kind of config before. Meaning I never see anyone
> call a route block from failure_route. Try put route block's contents
> into failure_route. Plus, you forward before you even set the failure
> route.. Im not sure if that's a good idea too.
>
> Andrey.
>
> P.S - Maybe someone can suggest more on this issue??
>
> On 9/7/06, AR. <arr at alumni.csie.ncu.edu.tw> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> I have a problme about the failure route
>>
>> My scenario is that:
>> If voice gateway 1 is busy then forward the call to the voice
>> gateway 2
>>
>> My config is :
>> route[5] {
>> rewritehostport("voice_gateway_1:5060");
>> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
>> t_on_failure("2");
>> if(isflagset(1))
>> append_branch();
>> setflag(1);
>> t_relay();
>> break;
>> }
>> failure_route[2] {
>> route(6);
>> }
>> route[6] {
>> rewritehostport("voice_gateway_2:5060");
>> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
>> break;
>> }
>> But it still doesn't work
>> anyone help?
>>
>> Best Regards
>> AR.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list