Hello,

I haven't added the branch failure event route and not worked much with it, but I guess it works like adding a new branch in a parallel forking, instead of serial forking that is done with failure_route.

I will look at the code when I get a chance, the workaround for now should be enforcing the reply code inside a failure_route, eventually by setting some flag inside event route so you know you handled the redirect reply.

Cheers, Daniel

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Marco Capetta mcapetta@sipwise.com wrote:

Hello,

we have a problem of final reply code in case of 302 and then 486 busy.

This is our scenario:

A, B and C are subscribers.

A ----------> Kamailio ----------> B Kamailio <---302---- B Kamailio -----------------------> C Kamailio <---486----------------- C A <---302---- Kamailio

Expected behavior: Kamailio should reply to A with 486, as C was busy, and not 302.

We have kamailio v5.1.4

In the call to B we set both failure and branch_failure: t_on_failure("failure_route"); t_on_branch_failure("failure_redirect");

in order to handle the 302 redirect per branch with: event_route[tm:branch-failure:failure_redirect] { if($T_reply_code == 301 || $T_reply_code == 302) { do redirect ... } }

and the final failure with: failure_route[FAILURE_ROUTE_LOCAL] { do something ... }

Since we have 'modparam("tm", "failure_reply_mode", 3)' my expectation is to get the winning reply from the branch of last step.

Is there any configuration I'm missing? Since we manage the redirect with a branch-failure, is the winning reply calculated in a different way?

Thanks Marco

---

Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users