Wouldn’t it make more sense to just have an aggressive timeout for the “keeping it there” aspect?That is, if, upon receipt of a non-100 1xx message, a final dispositive reply does not follow within X seconds, route-advance to the next provider? This can be accomplished with the t_set_fr/t_reset_fr() technique previously discussed.It sounds like you might be making this unnecessarily complicated. :-) Don’t worry about how quickly they send you the progress/alerting messages; instead, worry about how slowly they send you anything else afterward.The only wrinkle I can see that in that is the caller experience...—Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors.On Feb 10, 2021, at 2:13 PM, David Villasmil <david.villasmil.work@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Some providers have other providers which many times just answer the call and try to keep it there. It’s a known strategy some scammers use. Getting a 180/3 in say; 500ms (to a real-life hard line, is probably one such call.--On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 18:52, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana <rbetancor@serlink.es> wrote:What is the point of refusing a call that answer with a 100/183 "too quickly" ? ... I don't get the point on that.Saludos
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Serlink Telecom S.R.L.U.De: "David Villasmil" <david.villasmil.work@gmail.com>
Para: "Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List" <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
Enviados: Miércoles, 10 de Febrero 2021 9:57:35
Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] Time elapsed since previous message._______________________________________________Hello Alex,Again thanks.I'm using that calculation to, when receiving a 180/3, if it comes in too quickly (i.e. 100ms) i cancel that call, and send a 480 the the A leg.I haven't found way of doing this, is this possible at all? I trired setting a very low t_set_fr(10,10) (0 means set the default), but that's not working...Is there a way of doing this?On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:31 PM David Villasmil <david.villasmil.work@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks Alex,Exactly what I was thinking. Just wondering whether there was a better way.Again THANKS!David--On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 14:56, Alex Balashov <abalashov@evaristesys.com> wrote:Hi,You can store the timestamp of the last message of interest in a transaction-persistent variable - that is, an AVP or XAVP - using $TV():Then, you can do some arithmetic like this to turn the difference between two timestamps into milliseconds. This is stolen straight from CSRP so adapt to your needs. :-)# Log request processing time. $var(cur_time) = $TV(Sn); $var(proc_diff) = ( ((( $(var(cur_time){s.select,0,.}{s.int}) - $(avp(proc_start){s.select,0,.}{s.int}) ) * 1000000) + ( $(var(cur_time){s.select,1,.}{s.int}) - $(avp(proc_start){s.select,1,.}{s.int}) ) / 1000) mod 1000 );— Alex—Sent from my iPadOn Feb 9, 2021, at 9:40 AM, David Villasmil <david.villasmil.work@gmail.com> wrote:Hello all,Is it possible to know the elapsed time since the previously received message?On outgoing calls, I.e: when i get a 180, how long did the 100 arrived? Or the INVITE...ThanksDavid--______________________________________________________________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users