19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
3:01 p.m.
Hello,
I made a ngrep and I noticed that NO "487 Request Cancelled" is reaching my
ser on CANCEL. That could be the problem.
I also tried to use the avpops module:
if (method == "CANCEL") {
setflag(1);
avp_write("cancel", "s:failover");
log(1, "-CANCEL PSTN-\n");
};
...and then with avp_check in the failover route. Without result. Could it
be that the variables in the avp don't reach another route?
Thanks for your help
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
Hi Sebastian,
Sorry about that, I misread the code. I will test your code and dig up
an example of how I do it in my failure routes to show you.
William
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>Hi William,
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>In my failover route I have the following code:
>
>failure_route[2] {
> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
> {
> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
> if (!next_gw())
> {
> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
> break;
> }
> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
> t_on_failure("2");
> t_relay();
> }
>}
>
>So the status is already filtered. I tried your code but without
result...
Does anybody know how I can stop the failover timer?
Thanks!
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
Hi Sebastian,
If the message is a cancel you it will have status 487
so you can just add
if (t_check_status("487")) {
break;
};
before the rest of the code in the failure route. You can mail me
privately if you have any more questions about this issue.
William
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm using ser to forward to PSTN Gatways.
>
>Before the t_relay I put the command:
>
>t_on_failure("2");
>
>So, after a timeout ser goes to:
>
>failure_route[2] {
> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
> {
> if (!next_gw())
> {
> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
> break;
> }
> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
> }
> t_on_failure("2");
> t_relay();
>}
>
>This is working very good... if the user doesn't make a hangup.
>
>If caller hangs up, the CANCEL hits SER and the call is cleanly
>
>
terminated.
>SER however continues to failure_route after
timeout of the initial
>INVITE... ser sends out a new INVITE message to another PSTN-Server...
>
>
and
the phone
rings (with nobody in the line)
Many thanks for your help!
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
19 Aug
19 Aug
5:30 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
Hi!
Here is a ngrep of my cancel message:
U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.747447 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060
CANCEL sip:0054261xxxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0.
Content-Length: 0.
Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B(a)192.168.1.101.
Max-Forwards: 70.
From: "Administrator"<sip:44441@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
To: <sip:0054261xxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d00002639000
000b4.
User-Agent: SJLabs-SJphone/1.30.252.
.
#
U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.997466 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024
SIP/2.0 200 ok -- no more pending branches.
Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B(a)192.168.1.101.
From: "Administrator"<sip:44441@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
To:
<sip:0054261xxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=2fb8a6135db5d855a493c61ec9633675
-1e47.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport=1024;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d000026
39000000b4.
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.3 (i386/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=31972
req_src_ip=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx req_src_port=1024 in_uri=sip:00542
.
Shouldn't that be 486 Request Terminated instead of 200 ok?
Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello,
I made a ngrep and I noticed that NO "487 Request Cancelled" is reaching
my
ser on CANCEL. That could be the problem.
I also tried to use the avpops module:
if (method == "CANCEL") {
setflag(1);
avp_write("cancel", "s:failover");
log(1, "-CANCEL PSTN-\n");
};
...and then with avp_check in the failover route. Without result. Could it
be that the variables in the avp don't reach another route?
Thanks for your help
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
PSTN-Server...
Hi Sebastian,
Sorry about that, I misread the code. I will test your code and dig up
an example of how I do it in my failure routes to show you.
William
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>Hi William,
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>In my failover route I have the following code:
>
>failure_route[2] {
> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
> {
> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
> if (!next_gw())
> {
> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
> break;
> }
> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
> t_on_failure("2");
> t_relay();
> }
>}
>
>So the status is already filtered. I tried your code but without
result...
> >
> >Does anybody know how I can stop the failover timer?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
> >To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
> >Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:28 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Sebastian,
> >>If the message is a cancel you it will have status 487
> >>
> >>so you can just add
> >>
> >> if (t_check_status("487")) {
> >> break;
> >> };
> >>
> >>before the rest of the code in the failure route. You can mail me
> >>privately if you have any more questions about this issue.
> >>
> >>William
> >>
> >>Sebastian Kühner wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>I'm using ser to forward to PSTN Gatways.
> >>>
> >>>Before the t_relay I put the command:
> >>>
> >>>t_on_failure("2");
> >>>
> >>>So, after a timeout ser goes to:
> >>>
> >>>failure_route[2] {
> >>> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
> >>> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
> >>> {
> >>> if (!next_gw())
> >>> {
> >>> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
> >>> break;
> >>> }
> >>> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
> >>> }
> >>> t_on_failure("2");
> >>> t_relay();
> >>>}
> >>>
> >>>This is working very good... if the user doesn't make a hangup.
> >>>
> >>>If caller hangs up, the CANCEL hits SER and the call is cleanly
> >>>
> >>>
> >terminated.
> >
> >
> >>>SER however continues to failure_route after timeout of the initial
> >>>INVITE... ser sends out a new INVITE message to another
>
>
and
>>the phone rings (with nobody in the line)
>>
>>Many thanks for your help!
>>
>>Sebastian
>
>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
5:31 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
why, I think CANCEL will return a 200 OK, according to RFC,
Iqbal
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
Hi!
Here is a ngrep of my cancel message:
U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.747447 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060
CANCEL sip:0054261xxxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0.
Content-Length: 0.
Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B(a)192.168.1.101.
Max-Forwards: 70.
From: "Administrator"<sip:44441@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
To: <sip:0054261xxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d00002639000
000b4.
User-Agent: SJLabs-SJphone/1.30.252.
.
#
U 2005/08/19 09:45:46.997466 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024
SIP/2.0 200 ok -- no more pending branches.
Call-ID: 2E863532-7483-4585-B9FA-C6EC3340203B(a)192.168.1.101.
From: "Administrator"<sip:44441@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=257139028539.
CSeq: 1 CANCEL.
To:
<sip:0054261xxxxxxx@pbx2.test.com:5060>;tag=2fb8a6135db5d855a493c61ec9633675
-1e47.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1024;rport=1024;branch=z9hG4bKc0a801650131c9b14305d51d000026
39000000b4.
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.3 (i386/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=31972
req_src_ip=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx req_src_port=1024 in_uri=sip:00542
.
Shouldn't that be 486 Request Terminated instead of 200 ok?
Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
.
Hello,
I made a ngrep and I noticed that NO "487 Request Cancelled" is reaching
my
ser on CANCEL. That could be the problem.
I also tried to use the avpops module:
if (method == "CANCEL") {
setflag(1);
avp_write("cancel", "s:failover");
log(1, "-CANCEL PSTN-\n");
};
...and then with avp_check in the failover route. Without result. Could it
be that the variables in the avp don't reach another route?
Thanks for your help
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
PSTN-Server...
Hi Sebastian,
Sorry about that, I misread the code. I will test your code and dig up
an example of how I do it in my failure routes to show you.
William
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>Hi William,
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>In my failover route I have the following code:
>
>failure_route[2] {
> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
> {
> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
> if (!next_gw())
> {
> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
> break;
> }
> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
> t_on_failure("2");
> t_relay();
> }
>}
>
>So the status is already filtered. I tried your code but without
>
>
result...
>>Does anybody know how I can stop the failover timer?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Bayan William Towfiq" <william(a)telepacket.com>
>>To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
>>Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:28 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Sebastian,
>>>If the message is a cancel you it will have status 487
>>>
>>>so you can just add
>>>
>>> if (t_check_status("487")) {
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>>before the rest of the code in the failure route. You can mail me
>>>privately if you have any more questions about this issue.
>>>
>>>William
>>>
>>>Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I'm using ser to forward to PSTN Gatways.
>>>>
>>>>Before the t_relay I put the command:
>>>>
>>>>t_on_failure("2");
>>>>
>>>>So, after a timeout ser goes to:
>>>>
>>>>failure_route[2] {
>>>> log (1, "next gateway...\n");
>>>> if (t_check_status("408|500|503"))
>>>> {
>>>> if (!next_gw())
>>>> {
>>>> t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> log (1, "gateway changed...\n");
>>>> }
>>>> t_on_failure("2");
>>>> t_relay();
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>This is working very good... if the user doesn't make a hangup.
>>>>
>>>>If caller hangs up, the CANCEL hits SER and the call is cleanly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>terminated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>SER however continues to failure_route after timeout of the initial
>>>>INVITE... ser sends out a new INVITE message to another
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>
and
>>the phone rings (with nobody in the line)
>>
>>Many thanks for your help!
>>
>>Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
5:54 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
If the response of CANCEL is OK, why does the request 487 Request Terminated
exist then?
Well, I think one more day on this and I will rewrite ser to save time...
The main problem is that ser goes into the failover route (on timeout),
although I've canceled the call...
7:49 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
I stand corrected, I just checked you should get a 487
Iqbal
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
If the response of CANCEL is OK, why does the request
487 Request Terminated
exist then?
Well, I think one more day on this and I will rewrite ser to save time...
The main problem is that ser goes into the failover route (on timeout),
although I've canceled the call...
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
.
8:25 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
OK, many thanks!
The only question that I have now is why my ser doesn't make that...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iqbal" <iqbal(a)gigo.co.uk>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
I stand corrected, I just checked you should get a
487
Iqbal
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>If the response of CANCEL is OK, why does the request 487 Request
Terminated
exist then?
Well, I think one more day on this and I will rewrite ser to save time...
The main problem is that ser goes into the failover route (on timeout),
although I've canceled the call...
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
.
10:06 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] cancal
OK, I'm a little bit nearer to my problem.
Normally, the callee sends back the 487 message... and that hits (and
kills!) the failover.
But I'm sending the INVITE message to a host that isn't reachable (because
I'm testing failover)... so nobody can send me back this message and the
failover gets after some seconds the timeout... well, I need that timeout,
too.
Is there any other way to stop the timer?
Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iqbal" <iqbal(a)gigo.co.uk>
To: "Sebastian Kühner" <skuehner(a)veraza.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] cancal
I stand corrected, I just checked you should get a
487
Iqbal
Sebastian Kühner wrote:
>If the response of CANCEL is OK, why does the request 487 Request
Terminated
exist then?
Well, I think one more day on this and I will rewrite ser to save time...
The main problem is that ser goes into the failover route (on timeout),
although I've canceled the call...
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
.
7045
days inactive
7045
days old
6 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Iqbal -
Sebastian Kühner