[SR-Users] TR: Failure Mode

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Mon Jul 24 08:40:35 CEST 2017


Ok, good it was sorted out.

Cheers,
Daniel


On 16.07.17 11:39, Nicolas Breuer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>  
>
> I moved all the « code” from Branch Failure to Route Failure and
> indeed it’s working as expected now
>
>  
>
> Thanks for your help
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *De :*Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 13 juillet 2017 10:36
> *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,
>
> 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>
>     <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,
>
>     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 <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/20170724/fb741f4d/attachment.html>


More information about the sr-users mailing list