[Kamailio-Users] Translate "486 Busy Here" to "600 Busy Everwhere"

[Geoffrey Mina]

Apologies... sent directly to Alex and not the list.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Geoffrey Mina <geoffreymina at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex,
> Thanks for the info.  We are on the same page about what a proxy
> should, and should not do... however, I am strugging with my ITSP
> (Level3) a bit on this.  Unfortunately, Asterisk is my media end-point
> here and there is no mechanism in Asterisk to send back a 600.  Level3
> is exhibiting very odd behaivor, and I have a ticket open with them,
> but who knows if it will ever go anywhere.
>
> CallID: 1627795841_10332 at 4.55.4.227
> Level3 --> INVITE --> Kamailio --> Asterisk
> Asterisk --> 183 Progress --> Kamailio --> Level3
> Asterisk --> 486 Busy --> Kamailio --> Level3
> Level3 --> ACK --> Kamailio --> Asterisk
>
> [at this point Level3 IMMEDIATELY sends me another presentation of the
> call with a different CallID and the process repeats]
>
> CallID: 604627041_120490736 at 4.55.20.99
> Level3 --> INVITE --> Kamailio --> Asterisk
> Asterisk --> 183 Progress --> Kamailio --> Level3
> Asterisk --> 486 Busy --> Kamailio --> Level3
> Level3 --> ACK --> Kamailio --> Asterisk
>
>
> I am pretty sure I am in the right here, and Level3 shouldn't be
> failing over in a 486 scenario... unfortunately my customer doesn't
> care why our systems aren't talking properly :)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Alex Balashov
> <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
>> geoffreymina at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> I have a need to translate a 486 from my asterisk server to a 600 when
>>> sending upstream to my carrier. The problem I am seeing is that when I
>>> return 486, the carrier re-presents the call to my next server in the SRV
>>> rotation... I really want the 486 to be a final disposition, so I am
>>> assuming sending a 600 would solve my issue.
>>>
>>> I am not sure how to go about forwarding the message, but modifying the
>>> SIP code... is that even allowed?
>>>
>>> This would be something like what I'm trying to do:
>>>
>>> failure_route[1]{
>>> if(t_check_status("
>>
>> Sure, you can do that.  It is not a good idea to do so in principle because
>> it violates how proxies should behave;  proxies are very thin interoperation
>> layers that are designed to statefully pass requests and replies back and
>> forth more or less strictly as intended by the endpoints involved, and a
>> B2BUA would more ideally fit your goal. Nevertheless, it is possible.
>>
>> failure_route[1] {
>>
>>        if(t_was_cancelled())
>>                exit;
>>
>>        if(t_check_status("486")) {
>>                t_reply("603", "Declined");
>>                exit;
>>        }
>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov - Principal
>> Evariste Systems
>> Web     : http://www.evaristesys.com/
>> Tel     : (+1) (678) 954-0670
>> Direct  : (+1) (678) 954-0671
>>
>