17 Apr
2009
17 Apr
'09
5:55 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Westerholt [mailto:henning.westerholt@1und1.de]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:33 AM
To: Carlos A. Alvarez
Cc: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] help using rewrite prefix
On Thursday 16 April 2009, Carlos A. Alvarez wrote:
Yes sir that is correct. I have a b2bua and the
requests are forwarded to
it, this causes kamailio to loose track of the state of the call.
Invite!
<uac>---->><b2bua>------->><kamailio>----->><carrier-GW>
Replies messages are sent like this
<carrier-GW>------->><b2bua>----->><uac>
Hi Carlos,
perhaps you forgot to enable record-routing, so kamailio is removed from the
path?
No I do use record-route, like I said, it only failes after a re-write.
Only happens when I strip a number or rewrite the
prefix. All other cr
calls are processed fine. Now if I add the prefix to the table this works
fine... For example, I dial prefix 54011 to select carrier A, carrier A
wants to see only CC NXXX XXXX from me, so I strip 5 digits to send the
number, than I see this condition. If I add the CC prefix to the table,
then CR module does a second look up and correctly routes the call.
Ok, but normally it should work just fine with only one lookup.
Dial 54011 53 2339 2339 sent to carrier A 53 2339
2339... you can imagine
how my tables are going to look if I have to add to routes per carrier...
at least for those carriers that are not assigning me a prefix. Routing
login is below.
route [11]{
xlog("L_INFO", "INFO: entering carrierroute routine\n");
cr_user_carrier("$fd", "$fd", "$avp(s:carrier)");
$avp(s:domain)=$fd;
setflag(16);
Ok.
if (!cr_route("$avp(s:carrier)",
"$avp(s:domain)", "$rU", "$rU",
"call_id", "$avp(s:host)")) {
sl_send_reply("480", "Temporarily
Unavailable");
setflag(2);
exit;
}
if (cr_route("$avp(s:carrier)", "$avp(s:domain)",
"$rU", "$rU",
"call_id", "$avp(s:host)")) {
xlog("L_INFO","Carrier found!!
(\"$avp(s:carrier)\",
\"$avp(s:domain)\", \"$rU\", \"$rU\",
\"$avp(s:host)\");\n");
force_rtp_proxy("o");
Why do you use the routing function two times? I can't imagine a good reason
for this. If you want to log the success, just do this after the first
cr_route. And also move all your logic in the second if case after the first
one. If the lookup in the first cr_route fails then your routing tables are
not correct.
I am only following the few examples that I can find. The message is missing something,
the second route is the failure route. But in your reply it seems to be truncated. I wish
there was a few implementation examples that we could follow, I really like the
carrierroute vs lcr.
Cheers,
Henning
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.11.58/2062 - Release Date: 04/16/09 16:38:00