3 Feb
2016
3 Feb
'16
4:14 p.m.
Daniel,
I do like rtpengine_manage() philosophically, and agree it's easier to
use and handles the case where the SDP offer is in the reply from the UAS.
I used to use it. However, it doesn't behave correctly in certain route
script contexts. Here's an example from my own environment:
---
route[XYZ_TRY] {
# Lots of stuff that can be executed either with or without
# transaction already having been created, e.g. use send_reply(),
# never just sl_send_reply() or t_reply(), etc.
t_on_branch("XYZ_BRANCH");
t_on_failure("XYZ_FAILURE");
t_relay();
}
branch_route[XYZ_BRANCH] {
rtpengine_manage();
}
failure_route[XYZ_FAILURE] {
if(t_is_canceled())
exit;
# Load some more routes maybe, create new
# branch.
$rd = "new_host";
route(XYZ_TRY);
}
---
This behaves mostly as you'd expect, _except_ in the case of a branch
timeout. If there's a _timeout_ per se, e.g. branch #1 host did not
respond, then in the subsequent branch #2 attempt, rtpengine_manage() in
the branch_route will send a 'delete' command rather than an updated
'offer' command.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that I am calling a request_route
from a failure_route, but I don't know how else to recycle the huge
corpus of logic that's in XYZ_TRY. I'm open to better suggestions.
Notwithstanding that, there may be other exotic cases as well where
rtpengine_manage() doesn't do the right thing. Either way, for this
reason I do not use it.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/