Re: [SR-Users] Failover with SRV records

Once I commented out the 3 lines below it works fine to failover. failure_route[1]{ xlog(" FAILED FAILURE_ROUTE[1]\n"); if(t_any_timeout()){ xlog(" TIMEOUT!\n"); # append_branch(); # xlog(" host is now $rd; all is $ru\n"); # route(1); } } Just so I understand this correctly, there is not need for a failover route in my case necessarily correct? The only reason I am going to keep this in here is so that the TIMEOUT! can notify me of a host failure and then I can remove the record from DNS so it doesn't keep trying it. One curious thing is that if say the first invite gets a 401 unauthorized from the 2nd server (the one that is online) when the client responds with its appropriate second invite with the authorization info kamailio 3.1.0 retries the dead host again whereas 1.5.5 does not retry the dead host a second time. That in 1.5.5. could have been a fluke because it completely requeries dns for each invite so it may just have been luke that 10 of the 10 times I tested it it randomly choose the live host the second invite? Either way this appears to work now. One question that did result from these tests is that a typical transaction looks like: 0(2856) ERROR: <script>: [Mon Nov 29 20:30:34 2010] INVITE 0(2856) ERROR: <script>: FAILED FAILURE_ROUTE[1] 0(2856) ERROR: <script>: TIMEOUT! 0(2856) ERROR: <script>: [Mon Nov 29 20:30:35 2010] ACK 0(2856) ERROR: <script>: [Mon Nov 29 20:30:35 2010] INVITE With no FAILED FAILURE_ROUTE[1] or TIMEOUT! on the second invite even though it did timeout. As I am typing this the idea came to me that the reason it didn't fail the second time around is because it did not receive a 401 the second time. If this is the case then what happens when the client isn't unauthorized? Or will the server always reply with a 401 the first time? -Eric