>Douglas Garstang writes:
>
>> Thanks. I went through that option yesterday. As we have 6 instances
>> of OpenSER running, I would need to have SIX routes defined in the
>> lcr table for a single prefix. For example (IP's modified):
>
>i don't follow this.  the example you give now is different from earlier
>one.  anyway, it is not a good idea to store 120,000 entries in lcr
>table.

We can't have over 120,000 lcr entries??? Your joking? Why not? They're all in memory aren't they? Providers publish rate sheets with thousands and thousands of entries, and people often use multiple providers. I'm a little confused what LCR is even for then if it can't handle this.

We need 6 entries in LCR because we have 6  OpenSER systems running. Each one needs to be configured differently, to send calls to different gateways. It's as simple as that. For example, our Hong Kong OpenSER needs to send calls to the Verizon gateway in Hong Kong, while our USA OpenSER needs to send calls to the Verizon gateway in the US. They don't all go to the same place.

>
>> Our providers also have sometimes have several gateways in a single
>> POP. However, we don't want to actually try and route calls to every
>> single gateway in a POP, just a few of them.
>
>then you could list only those you want to try.  there is no capability
>to skip gateways unless you do it in your script after calling
>next_gws.
>
>this convinces me that current pstn service model is something we would
>really need to get rid of.  emulating it using sip makes no sense.

Don't understand you.

It just seems who ever wrote the LCR module really didn't think of the real world application.

Doug.