7 Jan
2009
7 Jan
'09
6:21 p.m.
Hi list, I'm reading some old post in order to implement carrierroute.
I found this in a post that I include at the end of this message, but
the part that I want to ask about is this one:
"You can put all the carriers under the same table and prioritize the
gateway based on domains. Like tis you don't need to hardcode
anything in the config file"
If I do this, do I need to prioritize the gateways on the subscriber
table and if is there, how do I do it for the domain, when it is only a
cr_preferred_carrier field?
Cheers,
Juan.-
[OpenSER-Users] Carrierroute
*Ovidiu Sas* osas at voipembedded.com
<mailto:users%40lists.kamailio.org?Subject=%5BOpenSER-Users%5D%20Carrierroute&In-Reply-To=352597.51885.qm%40web45602.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
/Wed Mar 26 04:57:54 CET 2008/
* Previous message: [OpenSER-Users] Carrierroute
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/016657.html>
* Next message: [OpenSER-Users] [FEATURE REQ] allow does_uri_exist()
to test against other variables besides $ru
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/016658.html>
* *Messages sorted by:* [ date ]
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/date.html#16659>
[ thread ]
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/thread.html#16659>
[ subject ]
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/subject.html#16659>
[ author ]
<http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2008-March/author.html#16659>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Douglas,
I am using this module in production with more then 400k routes loaded
for 8 different providers and it is working like a charm.
As Henning mentioned, the interface is a little bit cumbersome but usable.
You can put all the carriers under the same table and prioritize the
gateway based on domains. Like tis you don't need to hardcode
anything in the config file.
Carrierroute was designed to deal with a big amount of routing rules
and it is doing an amazing job.
LCR was designed to deal with a limited number of routes/gateways but
it has a different level of flexibility and a more mature interface.
Carrierroute is a brand new module and for sure it will improve in
flexibility as times go by (just like the lcr did along releases).
Hope this helps,
Ovidiu Sas
7 Jan
7 Jan
6:35 p.m.
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
I found this in a post that I include at the end of
this message, but
the part that I want to ask about is this one:
"You can put all the carriers under the same table and prioritize the
gateway based on domains. Like tis you don't need to hardcode
anything in the config file"
If I do this, do I need to prioritize the gateways on the subscriber
table and if is there, how do I do it for the domain, when it is only a
cr_preferred_carrier field?
Hi Juan,
you don't need to combine all carriers together. If you want to priorize over
different carriers, then i'd suggest you also use them in cr. For example
something like this:
- carrier premium; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3..
- carrier standard; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3..
Then you could use different domains to implement your failover over the
different GWs. And also of course do your prefix matching to route your calls
to the best GW.
If you want to use only one carrier, then you also could just load the domain
with DB avpops from some table, and just give the AVP to the cr_route
function. You don't need to use the cr_user_carrier function, this is
provided mainly for convinience and backward compatiblity.
Cheers,
Henning
7:08 p.m.
Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Hi again Henning,
So to do the failover over the different gw's, has to be done on the
configuration file? As [fail route xx]..
Cheers,
Juan.-
I found this in a post that I include at the end
of this message, but
the part that I want to ask about is this one:
"You can put all the carriers under the same table and prioritize the
gateway based on domains. Like tis you don't need to hardcode
anything in the config file"
If I do this, do I need to prioritize the gateways on the subscriber
table and if is there, how do I do it for the domain, when it is only a
cr_preferred_carrier field?
Hi Juan,
you don't need to combine all carriers together. If you want to priorize over
different carriers, then i'd suggest you also use them in cr. For example
something like this:
- carrier premium; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3..
- carrier standard; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3..
Then you could use different domains to implement your failover over the
different GWs. And also of course do your prefix matching to route your calls
to the best GW.
If you want to use only one carrier, then you also could just load the domain
with DB avpops from some table, and just give the AVP to the cr_route
function. You don't need to use the cr_user_carrier function, this is
provided mainly for convinience and backward compatiblity.
Cheers,
Henning
7:11 p.m.
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Hi Juan,
yes, you need to do this in the cfg. You can use a static setup, like having
three different failure_routes that goes over three domains. Another option
is to load the failure routes from the DB, then you would need only one
failure route, but need to setup this in the DB. Take a look to the example
1.18 in the cr README about how to use the cr_next_domain function.
Cheers,
Henning
you don't
need to combine all carriers together. If you want to priorize
over different carriers, then i'd suggest you also use them in cr. For
example something like this:
- carrier premium; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3..
- carrier standard; domain 0, 1, 2; GWs A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3..
Then you could use different domains to implement your failover over the
different GWs. And also of course do your prefix matching to route your
calls to the best GW.
If you want to use only one carrier, then you also could just load the
domain with DB avpops from some table, and just give the AVP to the
cr_route function. You don't need to use the cr_user_carrier function,
this is provided mainly for convinience and backward compatiblity.
[..]
So to do the failover over the different gw's, has to be done on the
configuration file? As [fail route xx]..
5798
days inactive
5798
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Henning Westerholt -
Juan Asencio