[SR-Users] 477 Unfortunately error on sending to next hop occurred

[Steve Davies]

On 23 August 2013 11:18, Steve Davies <steve at connection-telecom.com> wrote:

> Here's what I put in RELAY route block:
>
>         $var(rr) = t_relay();
>
>         xlog("L_NOTICE","SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned $var(rr)\n");
>
>         if (!$var(rr)) {
>
>                 sl_reply_error();
>
>         }
>
>
>
> In 4.0.3, t_relay gives a -1 in the case that there is a physical network
> issue (in my test I have a "-j DROP" iptables rule)
>
>
Trying to find a way to detect the case where t_relay fails but doesn't
call the failure block.  I dumped some hopeful looking pseudo variables,
and tried to use an avp to communicate from the failure branch back to the
relay point.

I tried this:

        $avp(senttoast) = 0;
        $var(rr) = t_relay();
        xlog("L_NOTICE","SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned $var(rr) err.rcode
is $err.rcode t_r_c is $T_reply_code sent = $avp(senttoast)\n");
        if ($var(rr) < 0) {
                sl_reply_error();
        }

and in my failure block I set $avp(senttoast) to 1.


I get:

Aug 23 12:07:02 ubuntu /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7819]: NOTICE: <script>:
SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned -1 err.rcode is <null> t_r_c is 100 sent = 0

In the case of a 477 being sent back.  So I can't find anything distinctive
so far.

In the case of a soft failure (I have the upstream send a 500):

Aug 23 12:09:32 ubuntu /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7817]: NOTICE: <script>:
SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned 1 err.rcode is <null> t_r_c is 100 sent = 0

So the same.

>From the trace I can see that the failure block is only executed after the
t_relay returns.  The failure block runs on a different pid.

So there is a race.  Or maybe the avp doesn't work across branches or
something?

Clues would be welcome!

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20130823/eb1d23ae/attachment.html>