[SR-Users] rtpengine port allocation & recycling [solved]

[Alex Balashov]

Daniel,

I do like rtpengine_manage() philosophically, and agree it's easier to 
use and handles the case where the SDP offer is in the reply from the UAS.

I used to use it. However, it doesn't behave correctly in certain route 
script contexts. Here's an example from my own environment:

---
route[XYZ_TRY] {
    # Lots of stuff that can be executed either with or without
    # transaction already having been created, e.g. use send_reply(),
    # never just sl_send_reply() or t_reply(), etc.

    t_on_branch("XYZ_BRANCH");
    t_on_failure("XYZ_FAILURE");

    t_relay();
}

branch_route[XYZ_BRANCH] {
    rtpengine_manage();
}

failure_route[XYZ_FAILURE] {
    if(t_is_canceled())
       exit;

    # Load some more routes maybe, create new
    # branch.

    $rd = "new_host";

    route(XYZ_TRY);
}
---

This behaves mostly as you'd expect, _except_ in the case of a branch 
timeout. If there's a _timeout_ per se, e.g. branch #1 host did not 
respond, then in the subsequent branch #2 attempt, rtpengine_manage() in 
the branch_route will send a 'delete' command rather than an updated 
'offer' command.

Perhaps the root of the problem is that I am calling a request_route 
from a failure_route, but I don't know how else to recycle the huge 
corpus of logic that's in XYZ_TRY. I'm open to better suggestions.

Notwithstanding that, there may be other exotic cases as well where 
rtpengine_manage() doesn't do the right thing. Either way, for this 
reason I do not use it.

-- Alex

-- 
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States

Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/