One question on this... In my scenario, would using t_reply in failure_route send the response to the party who sent the INVITE or the party who sent a message which caused Kamailio to end up in failure_route? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote: > geoffreymina(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I have a need to translate a 486 from my asterisk server to a 600 >> when >> sending upstream to my carrier. The problem I am seeing is that >> when I >> return 486, the carrier re-presents the call to my next server in >> the SRV >> rotation... I really want the 486 to be a final disposition, so I am >> assuming sending a 600 would solve my issue. >> >> I am not sure how to go about forwarding the message, but >> modifying the >> SIP code... is that even allowed? >> >> This would be something like what I'm trying to do: >> >> failure_route[1]{ >> if(t_check_status(" > > Sure, you can do that. It is not a good idea to do so in principle > because > it violates how proxies should behave; proxies are very thin > interoperation > layers that are designed to statefully pass requests and replies > back and > forth more or less strictly as intended by the endpoints involved, > and a > B2BUA would more ideally fit your goal. Nevertheless, it is possible. > > failure_route[1] { > > if(t_was_cancelled()) > exit; > > if(t_check_status("486")) { > t_reply("603", "Declined"); > exit; > } > } > > > -- > Alex Balashov - Principal > Evariste Systems > Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ > Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 > Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 >