[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