[SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
miconda at gmail.com
Thu Jul 13 10:35:31 CEST 2017
Hello,
408 has priority over 486, being a lower value. If you add the second
branch in a branch-failure-event-route, then you have parallel forking
and the lowest code is selected.
Anyhow, from your sip trace, it seems that the 486 was forwarded, not
local generated, because it has the to-tag from callee side. The 408 is
generated by kamailio.
Maybe you can enable cfgtrace for debugger an see what actions are
executed, to be sure it runs over the config parts you expect to.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 12.07.17 16:01, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this feedback. I can for sure remove the sl_send_reply from
> branch_failure_route and I can trace that, if I remove that
>
> And the destination is busy , the kamalio will only send the 408
> “time-out” reply.
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 12 juillet 2017 15:13
> *À :* Nicolas Breuer <Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>; Kamailio (SER) -
> Users Mailing List <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> *Objet :* Re: [SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> do not send replies in branch failure route. At that phase, the
> outgoing branches are not yet completed. More important, do not use
> sl_send_reply() (this sends a stateless reply) after the transaction
> has been created (which is the case of branch failure route or failure
> route), use t_reply() if you are sure that transaction was created or
> send_reply() if you are not sure (so this option is the safest).
> Sending a stateless reply when a transaction is active doesn't have
> any effect on transaction state and tm module will send its own reply
> once it considers the transaction to be completed.
>
> Also, creating a new branch in branch failure route
> (event_route[tm:branch-failure:...]) adds to parallel forking. Serial
> forking is done only from failure_route[...], when all branches sent
> out before were completed.
>
> Hope these are clarifying the behaviour you get there.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 12.07.17 11:47, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
>
>
> The 486 is send by « myself” in the branch failure code.
>
>
>
>
> ########################################################## 486 busy
>
> if (t_check_status("486") && $sht(branch=>$ci) != "" ) {
>
> xlog("L_NOTICE",
> "############################################ Error received from
> the Carrier ----> Error $var(errorcode)");
>
> * sl_send_reply("486","Busy Here");*
>
> exit;
>
> }
>
>
>
> If I remove that, no “486” is send or put in acc.
>
>
>
>
>
> So to be clear :
>
>
>
> * 486 is send by branch failure
> * 408 is send by route failure and the winning reply
>
>
>
> Normally I don’ t have to code to send a “486” on the branch.
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 12 juillet 2017 09:23
> *À :* Nicolas Breuer <Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>
> <mailto:Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>; Kamailio (SER) - Users
> Mailing List <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> *Objet :* Re: [SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> your latest sip trace shows that 486 is sent out to caller (the
> acc record from syslog shows that the transaction was completed
> with that code as well). An ACK follows, but then I see also 408.
>
> Can you check you config and see if there is some other place that
> can generate the reply, like a send_reply(...) or t_reply(...)?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 10.07.17 12:02, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> the new trace shows a serial forking, with the first branch
> timing out, but the second branch is getting a 183 response,
> and that's all. It is not the same scenario you described. I
> need the full trace, from initial invite to the final response
> sent back to caller to see what is the winning response code.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 10.07.17 10:10, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Yes I’m sure the second branch is launched from Branch
> Failure Route.
>
> If you check the timer trace, you can see the second is
> send 4 seconds later than the first ( I set the tm_inv to
> 4 seconds )
>
>
>
> But in the trace I sent you the “last” invite. The
> kamailio sent 4 invites.
>
>
>
> I will send you the complete trace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 10 juillet 2017 09:20
> *À :* Nicolas Breuer <Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>
> <mailto:Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>; Kamailio (SER) -
> Users Mailing List <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> *Objet :* Re: [SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> looking at the trace, the routing is parallel forking,
> because the two branches are sent out at the same time, it
> is no final response to the first branch before the second
> is sent out.
>
> Are you sure you sent out the second branch from failure
> route? From the sip trace is doesn't seem so.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 07.07.17 15:38, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
>
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>
> I sent all the information’s to your email address
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 7 juillet 2017 13:21
> *À :* Nicolas Breuer <Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>
> <mailto:Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>; Kamailio (SER)
> - Users Mailing List <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> *Objet :* Re: [SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
>
>
>
> Can you get a ngrep trace captured on kamailio server
> for such situation?
>
> Also, can you paste the failure_route block here along
> with the log messages from the syslog?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 07.07.17 12:42, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> I think serial because the new branch is only
> created in case the first is timeout.
>
>
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 7 juillet 2017 12:40
> *À :* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> <sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>; Nicolas
> Breuer <Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>
> <mailto:Nicolas.Breuer at belcenter.biz>
> *Objet :* Re: [SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> are you doing parallel forking or serial forking?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 07.07.17 12:24, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> * *
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Some help here is needed
>
>
>
> # auto-discard branches from previous serial
> forking leg
>
> modparam("tm", "failure_reply_mode", 3)
>
>
>
> I test a call with two branches.
>
>
>
> 1^st branch received a 408 timeout error
>
> 2nd branch received a 486 busy.
>
>
>
> Normally the failure route should be with the 486.
>
>
>
> NOTICE: <script>: Failure route
> -----2---1--408----
>
>
>
> We can see the 408 is the winning reply but I
> understood from the documentation that if
>
> Failure reply mode is “3” , the winning reply
> is always the reply from the last branch J
>
>
>
> It’s a problem because if the 1^st is timeout
> (because down), the second is OK but callee is
> busy ; we don’t send the right reply to the
> caller
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
>
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>
> www.twitter.com/miconda
> <http://www.twitter.com/miconda>--
> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
> <http://www.asipto.com>
>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com
> <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>
> www.twitter.com/miconda
> <http://www.twitter.com/miconda>--
> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
> <http://www.asipto.com>
>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com
> <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda>--
> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
> <http://www.asipto.com>
>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com
> <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20170713/37d77abf/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list