[SR-Users] Reply 503 was replaced to 500

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

sending a >=300 reply is for an not-established dialog, which eventually 
can be forked by proxy, meaning many 1xx replies can get to caller, then 
many >=300 replies can get to the proxy which will chose which one to 
use for sending back to the caller.

Doing a t_reply(...) with a different code than the received one is like 
having two branch, one locally and one from where the reply is received, 
but you decide to reply from the local one. So if the caller device has 
problems with this case, the it will have problems with serial/parallel 
forking.

For accounting you can save incoming to-tag in an avp and store it in a 
separate column in acc table. But setting the to-tag for t_reply() is 
not possible at this time.

Btw, have you tried instead the change_reply_status() function?

http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/textopsx.html#textopsx.change_reply_status

Cheers,
Daniel

On 7/17/12 2:23 PM, Uri Shacked wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is the problem with the solution to sending different reply then 
> the once I receive:
>
> I check if the reply is 603. If so, i did t_drop_replies and then 
> t_reply with the reply i wanted to send back. 500 with append_to_reply 
> something....
>
> The problem is that on the 500 that i send back, the to_tag is not the 
> same to_tag that i received with the 603.
>
> That makes some problems on the sip and lots of problems on the CDR 
> creation (it is based on to_tag as well).
>
> Any ideas?
>
> How do i make it the same to_tag? Removing a header and recreating it 
> seems very dirty for it.....
>
> BR,
>
> Uri
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla 
> <miconda at gmail.com <mailto:miconda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     this 503 to 500 is a requirement from RFC, to prevent propagation
>     of blacklisting/disabling destination hosts. I don't remember
>     right now any configuration option for it, but you can try to
>     enforce it from the failure route, like:
>
>     t_reply("503", "...");
>
>     Cheers,
>     Daniel
>
>
>     On 6/24/12 4:30 PM, Uri Shacked wrote:
>>     I just read the topic - "_Copy reason field from 503 to 500. _"
>>     Is there a way to change it if i want to send back the original
>>     leg 2 503 reply?
>>
>>     On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Uri Shacked <ushacked at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:ushacked at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>         Kamailio server is behind our company's softswitch and acts
>>         as a sip application server.
>>         I notice that there are calls that the softswitch replied
>>         with 503 "service unavailable" and kamailio sent to the
>>         originator leg 500 "service unavaileable".
>>         When kamailio recieved 504 or 502 it sends them back as is.
>>         shouldn't it be the same with 503?
>>         It also does not have a "to tag" in the CDR. And the "to tag"
>>         in the 503 that was recieved is not equal to the 500 reply
>>         "to tag"  kamailio sent back.
>>         any ideas?
>>         BR,
>>         Uri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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://www.asipto.com/>
>     http://twitter.com/#!/miconda  <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>  -http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>     Kamailio Advanced Training, Seattle, USA, Sep 23-26, 2012 -http://asipto.com/u/katu
>     Kamailio Practical Workshop, Netherlands, Sep 10-12, 2012 -http://asipto.com/u/kpw
>
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Seattle, USA, Sep 23-26, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu
Kamailio Practical Workshop, Netherlands, Sep 10-12, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kpw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20120717/428b60ca/attachment-0001.htm>