[SR-Users] Problem with Stateless Dispatcher Call Load Distribution (Algorithm 10)

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

only several algorithms are suitable for full stateless usage, I am 
mainly referring to those doing hashes over attributes of the sip 
message (like hash over call id).

For the other you would need to use tm module and t_relay(). That will 
make it easy for you.

Otherwise, you can use htable module to store the address from where the 
reply is coming and send the ACK there if it doesn't have a route header.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 12/1/12 4:35 AM, SIP Mailing-list wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Yes I am using forward() because I thought it would be the fastest 
> solution.
> I guess I was lead on by the dispatcher documentation saying it can be 
> used statelessly, so I tried to do the whole route script stateless.
>
> However, I've recently been looking at t_relay and in particular 
> t_check_trans() and I think that might be the answer...
>
> I do think it would be great if the ds_select_dst/domain functions 
> performed a lookup in the hash table for non-INVITEs and set the right 
> destination though.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
>
> On 30 November 2012 08:31, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com 
> <mailto:miconda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     by stateless dispatcher do you mean using forward() to send out
>     the INVITE?
>
>     Cheers,
>     Daniel
>
>
>     On 11/28/12 1:40 PM, SIP Mailing-list wrote:
>>     Further edit:
>>
>>     Actually I tried using ds_select_dst to forward the ACK on the
>>     unconfirmed (unanswered; 603 Decline) call but it routed to
>>     another destination.
>>     My work-around involves using ds_next_dst to send the ACK to
>>     *all* destinations.
>>
>>     Does anyone know if there is a way to fix this behaviour?
>>     Any help is much appreciated!
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Richard
>>
>>
>>     On 27 November 2012 20:12, SIP Mailing-list <sip at racitup.com
>>     <mailto:sip at racitup.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi guys,
>>
>>         I wonder if someone could sanity check something for me.
>>
>>         I currently have a simple load balancer set up using
>>         algorithm 10 (call load distribution) from the dispatcher
>>         module. I'm using Record-Routing so that I can clear down the
>>         call load record at the end of the call.
>>         Everything looked like it was working okay until I just
>>         spotted a problem that I think might be a bug. It's to do
>>         with ACKs to non-200 responses.
>>
>>         In a normal call, the flow goes:
>>         UAC Proxy               UAS
>>         1     INVITE -->
>>         2                          INVITE-->
>>         3                         <-- 200 OK
>>         --- ds_load_update()
>>         4     <-- 200 OK
>>         5      ACK -->
>>         6                           ACK -->
>>         Now between step 3 and 4 the proxy runs ds_load_update which
>>         according to the documentation "set internal state to
>>         confirmed for the call load" entry in the internal call state
>>         store. This means the proxy knows where to send the ACK at
>>         step 5 because it is safely in the call state store so you
>>         can use ds_select_dst again on the ACK to get it to the right
>>         place. Works fine!
>>
>>         Now consider the non-200 case:
>>         UAC Proxy               UAS
>>         1     INVITE -->
>>         2                          INVITE-->
>>         3                      <-- 603 Decline
>>         --- ds_load_unset()
>>         4  <-- 603 Decline
>>         5      ACK -->
>>         6                           ACK --> ???
>>         Between step 3 and 4 the proxy is supposed to run
>>         ds_load_unset() which unconditionally removes the call from
>>         the call state store. Now when the ACK comes in at step 5,
>>         the proxy has no record of the call and so doesn't know where
>>         to send the ACK. This results in retried Declines and ACKs.
>>         Broken :-(
>>
>>         If the proxy doesn't run ds_load_unset() on the 603 response,
>>         is there some kind of timer that will cause the call to be
>>         removed from the call state store on unconfirmed calls?
>>
>>         I don't think I can run ds_load_unset on the ACK because
>>         there's nothing in the ACK that tells me it is because of a
>>         603, rather than a 200.
>>
>>         Edit: actually there is! The Route header is present on the
>>         200 ACK, but *not* on the 3xx to 6xx ACK. Maybe I can use
>>         loose_route... Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated!
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>         Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
>>     sr-users at lists.sip-router.org  <mailto:sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
>>     http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>     -- 
>     Daniel-Constantin Mierla -http://www.asipto.com
>     http://twitter.com/#!/miconda  <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>  -http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20121204/290185ba/attachment-0001.htm>