[SR-Users] append_branch and t_replicate issue

Bruce McAlister bruce.mcalister at googlemail.com
Mon Jul 21 15:24:59 CEST 2014


Just an update on this, it appears to send 2 REGISTER requests in 
parellel to BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3, so it looks like the append_branch is 
being added but its uri is set to BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3 (and not 
BACKUP_REGISTRAR_2 as requested int the append_branch section)

On 21/07/2014 13:49, Asgaroth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have an issue that I cant seem to get to the bottom of, I would 
> appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.
>
> I have 3 registrar's and would like to replicate the registration 
> regest from 1 to the other 2, I am trying this with t_replicate, the 
> docs say that to send to multiple destinations an append_branch should 
> be performed prior to the t_replicate, which is what I am trying to do.
>
> What appears to happen is that the replication only sends the REGISTER 
> to the server defined in the t_replicate command, it doesnt appear to 
> be sending it to the destination defined in append_branch.
>
> Kamailio Version:
>
> version: kamailio 4.1.4 (x86_64/linux) 84c1ff
> flags: STATS: Off, USE_TCP, USE_TLS, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, 
> DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, 
> DBG_QM_MALLOC, USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT, USE_DNS_CACHE, 
> USE_DNS_FAILOVER, USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLACKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES
> ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16, 
> MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 4MB
> poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
> id: 84c1ff
> compiled on 14:36:04 Jul 20 2014 with gcc 4.4.7
>
> Here is what I have tried so far (on registrar 1):
>
> #!define BACKUP_REGISTRAR_1 '1.1.1.1'
> #!define BACKUP_REGISTRAR_2 '1.1.1.2'
> #!define BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3 '1.1.1.3'
>
> save("location");
> if ( src_ip != BACKUP_REGISTRAR_2 && src_ip != BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3 ) {
>      append_branch("sip:" + BACKUP_REGISTRAR_2 + ":5060");
>      t_replicate("sip:" + BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3 + ":5060");
> };
>
> With the above in place, I only see the system attempting to replicate 
> to BACKUP_REGISTRAR_3, I dont see any request to BACKUP_REGISTRAR_2.
>
> Am I doing something wrong here?
>
> Thanks
> Bruce




More information about the sr-users mailing list