Re: [SR-Users] 477 Unfortunately error on sending to next hop occurred

On 23 August 2013 11:18, Steve Davies steve@connection-telecom.com wrote:

Here's what I put in RELAY route block:

    $var(rr) = t_relay();

    xlog("L_NOTICE","SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned $var(rr)\n");

    if (!$var(rr)) {

            sl_reply_error();

    }

In 4.0.3, t_relay gives a -1 in the case that there is a physical network issue (in my test I have a "-j DROP" iptables rule)

Trying to find a way to detect the case where t_relay fails but doesn't call the failure block. I dumped some hopeful looking pseudo variables, and tried to use an avp to communicate from the failure branch back to the relay point.

I tried this:

$avp(senttoast) = 0; $var(rr) = t_relay(); xlog("L_NOTICE","SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned $var(rr) err.rcode is $err.rcode t_r_c is $T_reply_code sent = $avp(senttoast)\n"); if ($var(rr) < 0) { sl_reply_error(); }

and in my failure block I set $avp(senttoast) to 1.

I get:

Aug 23 12:07:02 ubuntu /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7819]: NOTICE: <script>: SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned -1 err.rcode is <null> t_r_c is 100 sent = 0

In the case of a 477 being sent back. So I can't find anything distinctive so far.

In the case of a soft failure (I have the upstream send a 500):

Aug 23 12:09:32 ubuntu /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7817]: NOTICE: <script>: SLD: in RELAY, t_relay returned 1 err.rcode is <null> t_r_c is 100 sent = 0

So the same.

From the trace I can see that the failure block is only executed after the

t_relay returns. The failure block runs on a different pid.

So there is a race. Or maybe the avp doesn't work across branches or something?

Clues would be welcome!

Steve