Hi
I tried the "change_reply_status".
The problem with it is that i need to do "append_to_reply" as well. The first one can be called only on the "on reply" route, and the second on the "on failure" route.
And as i notice, doing "append_to_reply" with no "t_reply" does not really append anything... so it looks like I will have to do "t_reply" and deal with the to_tag later.
Thanks,
Uri
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:Hello,
sending a >=300 reply is for an not-established dialog, which eventually can be forked by proxy, meaning many 1xx replies can get to caller, then many >=300 replies can get to the proxy which will chose which one to use for sending back to the caller.
Doing a t_reply(...) with a different code than the received one is like having two branch, one locally and one from where the reply is received, but you decide to reply from the local one. So if the caller device has problems with this case, the it will have problems with serial/parallel forking.
For accounting you can save incoming to-tag in an avp and store it in a separate column in acc table. But setting the to-tag for t_reply() is not possible at this time.
Btw, have you tried instead the change_reply_status() function?
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/textopsx.html#textopsx.change_reply_status
Cheers,
Daniel
On 7/17/12 2:23 PM, Uri Shacked wrote:Hi,
Here is the problem with the solution to sending different reply then the once I receive:
I check if the reply is 603. If so, i did t_drop_replies and then t_reply with the reply i wanted to send back. 500 with append_to_reply something....
The problem is that on the 500 that i send back, the to_tag is not the same to_tag that i received with the 603.
That makes some problems on the sip and lots of problems on the CDR creation (it is based on to_tag as well).
Any ideas?
How do i make it the same to_tag? Removing a header and recreating it seems very dirty for it.....
BR,
Uri
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
this 503 to 500 is a requirement from RFC, to prevent propagation of blacklisting/disabling destination hosts. I don't remember right now any configuration option for it, but you can try to enforce it from the failure route, like:
t_reply("503", "...");
Cheers,
Daniel
On 6/24/12 4:30 PM, Uri Shacked wrote:Is there a way to change it if i want to send back the original leg 2 503 reply?On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Uri Shacked <ushacked@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,Kamailio server is behind our company's softswitch and acts as a sip application server.I notice that there are calls that the softswitch replied with 503 "service unavailable" and kamailio sent to the originator leg 500 "service unavaileable".When kamailio recieved 504 or 502 it sends them back as is. shouldn't it be the same with 503?It also does not have a "to tag" in the CDR. And the "to tag" in the 503 that was recieved is not equal to the 500 reply "to tag" kamailio sent back.any ideas?BR,Uri
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Seattle, USA, Sep 23-26, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu Kamailio Practical Workshop, Netherlands, Sep 10-12, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kpw-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Seattle, USA, Sep 23-26, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu Kamailio Practical Workshop, Netherlands, Sep 10-12, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kpw