I have the following logic.
route { ... t_on_reply("1"); t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
onreply_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); }
failure_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); if (status=="408") { do something 1 } else if (status=="480") { do something 2 } else if (status=="486") { do something 3 } }
When a reply with 4xx comes in, it first goes through onreply_route[1] and get the result printed to syslog. The message is then passed to failure_route[1]. But it seems that the status code and reason are gone. I get a <null> for both values in the failure route. How should I change the script to get that.
Zeus Ng
failure_routes process the initial request, not the reply which caused the failure.
Daniel
On 5/27/2004 3:35 PM, Zeus Ng wrote:
I have the following logic.
route { ... t_on_reply("1"); t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
onreply_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); }
failure_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); if (status=="408") { do something 1 } else if (status=="480") { do something 2 } else if (status=="486") { do something 3 } }
When a reply with 4xx comes in, it first goes through onreply_route[1] and get the result printed to syslog. The message is then passed to failure_route[1]. But it seems that the status code and reason are gone. I get a <null> for both values in the failure route. How should I change the script to get that.
Zeus Ng
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
failure_routes process the initial request, not the reply which caused the failure.
I'm not trying to process reply which caused the failure. Instead, I want to process the failure on the initial request. The problem is, a reply, no matter it's 1xx, 2xx, 3xx will always goes through reply route first. Then goes to failure route.
E.g.
UA1 -> SER -> UA2
If UA2 reply "486 Busy" to SER, the reply will be processed by reply route first (due to t_on_reply()) and then failure route (due to t_on_failure()). What I expected is any reply code >= 400 should be processed by failure route only.
Daniel
On 5/27/2004 3:35 PM, Zeus Ng wrote:
I have the following logic.
route { ... t_on_reply("1"); t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
onreply_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); }
failure_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); if (status=="408") { do something 1 } else if (status=="480") { do something 2 } else if (status=="486") { do something 3 } }
When a reply with 4xx comes in, it first goes through
onreply_route[1]
and get the result printed to syslog. The message is then passed to failure_route[1]. But it seems that the status code and reason are gone. I get a <null> for both values in the failure route.
How should I
change the script to get that.
Zeus Ng
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
You can try something like:
failure_route[1] { if ( t_check_status("486") ) { . do whatever .
} }
Zeus Ng wrote:
failure_routes process the initial request, not the reply which caused the failure.
I'm not trying to process reply which caused the failure. Instead, I want to process the failure on the initial request. The problem is, a reply, no matter it's 1xx, 2xx, 3xx will always goes through reply route first. Then goes to failure route.
E.g.
UA1 -> SER -> UA2
If UA2 reply "486 Busy" to SER, the reply will be processed by reply route first (due to t_on_reply()) and then failure route (due to t_on_failure()). What I expected is any reply code >= 400 should be processed by failure route only.
Daniel
On 5/27/2004 3:35 PM, Zeus Ng wrote:
I have the following logic.
route { ... t_on_reply("1"); t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
onreply_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); }
failure_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); if (status=="408") { do something 1 } else if (status=="480") { do something 2 } else if (status=="486") { do something 3 } }
When a reply with 4xx comes in, it first goes through
onreply_route[1]
and get the result printed to syslog. The message is then passed to failure_route[1]. But it seems that the status code and reason are gone. I get a <null> for both values in the failure route.
How should I
change the script to get that.
Zeus Ng
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Indeed, Andres is right, that's what should be done in this place.
The root reason is that 'status' is not intended for use in failure_route. (I hope we never advertised it was.) We should obviously make it impossible to avoid confusion. I think that enabling t_check_status from reply_route and removing 'status' will do it.
Note there is a great difference between what status and t_check_status do. 'status' refers to currenlty received reply in onreply_route. failure_route is very different -- failure_route returns to processing of the original request, with which several replies may be associated. t_check_status thus first does a branch picking process, selects a branch SER would use if you did nothing else, and that's what you receive.
-jiri
At 09:16 PM 5/27/2004, Andres wrote:
You can try something like:
failure_route[1] { if ( t_check_status("486") ) { . do whatever .
}}
Zeus Ng wrote:
failure_routes process the initial request, not the reply which caused the failure.
I'm not trying to process reply which caused the failure. Instead, I want to process the failure on the initial request. The problem is, a reply, no matter it's 1xx, 2xx, 3xx will always goes through reply route first. Then goes to failure route.
E.g.
UA1 -> SER -> UA2
If UA2 reply "486 Busy" to SER, the reply will be processed by reply route first (due to t_on_reply()) and then failure route (due to t_on_failure()). What I expected is any reply code >= 400 should be processed by failure route only.
Daniel
On 5/27/2004 3:35 PM, Zeus Ng wrote:
I have the following logic.
route { ... t_on_reply("1"); t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
onreply_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); }
failure_route[1] { xlog("L_NOTICE", "Reply status %rs: Reason %rr\n"); if (status=="408") { do something 1 } else if (status=="480") { do something 2 } else if (status=="486") { do something 3 } }
When a reply with 4xx comes in, it first goes through
onreply_route[1]
and get the result printed to syslog. The message is then passed to failure_route[1]. But it seems that the status code and reason are gone. I get a <null> for both values in the failure route.
How should I
change the script to get that.
Zeus Ng
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Andres Network Admin http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
The root reason is that 'status' is not intended for use in failure_route. (I hope we never advertised it was.) We should
No you didn't advertise it. It's only my common sense of assuming 'status' is also available in failure_route got it wrong. I should never do that. Indeed, there are a couple of functions in the TM module which have no documentation. I understand you guys are busy and will try digging in the code for answer. I wouldn't brother you unless I ran into situation like this. However, would you mind describing what t_forward_noack_uri() and t_write_req() does and some example scripts.
obviously make it impossible to avoid confusion. I think that enabling t_check_status from reply_route and removing 'status' will do it.
Before you go on removing 'status', can you confirm the question in the next paragraph?
Note there is a great difference between what status and t_check_status do. 'status' refers to currenlty received reply in onreply_route. failure_route is very different -- failure_route returns to processing of the original request, with which several replies may be associated. t_check_status thus first does a branch picking process, selects a branch SER would use if you did nothing else, and that's what you receive.
Does that mean t_check_status is parallel forking safe in reply_route? I wouldn't want a DND from a client in a group pickup affect the end result of the call.
At 03:51 AM 5/28/2004, Zeus Ng wrote:
The root reason is that 'status' is not intended for use in failure_route. (I hope we never advertised it was.) We should
No you didn't advertise it. It's only my common sense of assuming 'status' is also available in failure_route got it wrong. I should never do that.
No problem, I was just fearing we mistakenly documented it somewhere.
Indeed, there are a couple of functions in the TM module which have no documentation. I understand you guys are busy and will try digging in the code for answer. I wouldn't brother you unless I ran into situation like this. However, would you mind describing what t_forward_noack_uri() and t_write_req() does and some example scripts.
None of these functions is actually useful now. t_forward_noack_uri is primarily for internal use by other fucntions and t_write_req is a unix-socket-based IPC for talking to other applications, still a feature under development.
obviously make it impossible to avoid confusion. I think that enabling t_check_status from reply_route and removing 'status' will do it.
Before you go on removing 'status', can you confirm the question in the next paragraph?
Note there is a great difference between what status and t_check_status do. 'status' refers to currenlty received reply in onreply_route. failure_route is very different -- failure_route returns to processing of the original request, with which several replies may be associated. t_check_status thus first does a branch picking process, selects a branch SER would use if you did nothing else, and that's what you receive.
Does that mean t_check_status is parallel forking safe in reply_route? I wouldn't want a DND from a client in a group pickup affect the end result of the call.
You can use t_check_status from both, failure_route and onreply_route. In failure_route it picks the most likely reply candidate. In onreply_route it refers to currently processed reply.
If you process reply codes from failure_route: 1) you get to failure_route after all branches finished without success 2) you will get status of the lowest-code reply
If a callee sends a DND and there are other incomplete branches, failure_route will not be entered.
-jiri
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
-
Andres -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Jiri Kuthan -
Zeus Ng