20 Nov
2009
20 Nov
'09
6:32 p.m.
Hello,
On 20.11.2009 17:04 Uhr, Miklos Tirpak wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 11/20/2009 04:38 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
also 487 (request canceled) has the highest
priority.
On 20.11.2009 9:53 Uhr, Miklos Tirpak wrote:
yes.
On 11/20/2009 12:58 AM, Andres Moya wrote:
I think this is wrong
imo, if I got it right from your email, because
the failure route should work on a selected reply from the last set
of branches in serial forking.
Do you say that if I get 301 with couple of contacts, then in failure
route I create new branches, relay, all failed because of timeout
and/or busy, I get back in failure route with the 301? Dear all!
Please help. I have problem dealing with recursive call in failure
route.
this route happen first time for authentication to external SIP
provider (react on code 401), then it have response 480 i want to
direct traffic to another operator via cr_route.
First i relay INVITE and getting 401, then sending authentication,
but provider gives 480. I can see it in a dump of SIP session. But
my failure_route still thinking that reply code is 401 on second
reply. Maybe because i dont understand well how branches concept
work here? Or using kamailio 3.0? ;) Looks like it give me status
code of first reply and ignoring actual code in reply. :( I don't
know if it something with development version or my own
misunderstanding. sorry
This is correct, the proxy must choose one of the two responses to
forward and 401 has higher precedence than 480 (RFC3261, 16.7:
"Choosing the best response"). The failure route always works on the
selected response as opposed to the last response received.
I cannot drop all replies because maybe the reply I want to be sent
back to caller is from a previous branch. Think at:
A calls B
B phone gives busy
B has redirect to C in such case
C phone gives timeout
C has now redirect to voice mail
Voice mail returns server failure
If I need to drop the replies then I will send the 500 reply which is
wrong. If I do no drop replies, then it is hard to implement the
proper logic for different kinds of redirects:
- no answer
- busy
Yes, the above case is quite complicated, by default I think the 408
will be sent back because it is the lowest response code.
The priority list is: 6xx > 3xx > 4xx > 5xx.
The lowest response wins within the class but 401, 407, 415, 420, 484
are preferred over other 4xx responses.
If this is an issue then we can implement more sophisticated drop
commands that drop only selected branches, for example a single branch
that is being processed in failure route.
It just looks a bit unpredictable right now, mainly with what happens in
failure route because the reply code presented there is not what is
expected. So I would add a parameter:
t_drop_replies("all");
t_drop_replies("last");
It is not hard to implement at all. In SR is a flag to mark the start of
last set of branches -- so getting the first branch in the last step
would be:
for(first_branch=t->nr_of_outgoings-1; first_branch>=0; first_branch--)
if(t->uac[first_branch].flags&TM_UAC_FLAG_FB)
break;
But I would do it opposite, to have script simpler (and be K compatible
and have uac_redirect and other k modules work as expected :-) ),
instead of drop function, have drop by default the replies from last set
of branches, and then t_keep_replies() so one ca decide to keep the
replies. Probably can be switched one way or another (K or S) but config
compatibility mode.
Cheers,
Daniel
Miklos
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>>
>> Try to add t_drop_replies() to the failure route block when the 401
>> is processed. This function drops all the existing replies, 401 in
>> your case, hence 401 will not be selected again when 480 is received.
>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/