On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt@1und1.de wrote:

On Thursday 27 May 2010, JR Richardson wrote:

...

I am lab testing carrierroute modue on kamailio 1.5.4-notls (i386/linux) and have a question on how to continue processing a call if kamailio sends a call with t_relay() but does not get a response from the gateway.

I read about the timers in the tm module and set them pretty low in the config file:

# ----- tm params ----- modparam("tm", "fr_timer", 2) modparam("tm", "fr_inv_timer_next", 3)

But nothing happens in the routing script after an invite is sent and there is no response.  Debug just shows the invite to the gateway being re-transmited several times.

Hi JR,

i assume according your description that the GW in question don't send a provisional response. Then the tm module should generate a internal 408 after fr_timer interval which you could then catch in a failure_route. Do you armed the appropriate failure_route in your cfg?

Cheers,

Henning

Hi Henning,

Yes, the gateway is totally off-line so no response comes back. I do have failure_route in the config. This is related to another active post from me "Carrierroute failover domain not working" so I'm sure this is a redundant post, but your input is appreciated.

The pastebin has my kamailio.cfg, the kamailio debug trace and the error received by sipp and the ngrep capture.

http://pastebin.com/VQziKYjE

Thanks.

JR

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt@1und1.de wrote:

On Thursday 27 May 2010, JR Richardson wrote:

...

...

i assume according your description that the GW in question don't send a provisional response. Then the tm module should generate a internal 408 after fr_timer interval which you could then catch in a failure_route. Do you armed the appropriate failure_route in your cfg?

Yes, the gateway is totally off-line so no response comes back.  I do have failure_route in the config.  This is related to another active post from me "Carrierroute failover domain not working" so I'm sure this is a redundant post, but your input is appreciated.

The pastebin has my kamailio.cfg, the kamailio debug trace and the error received by sipp and the ngrep capture.

http://pastebin.com/VQziKYjE

Hi JR,

from the logs:

INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: rewrite_uri_recursor doesn't complete, uri 65, carrier 1, domain 2

this means that there was an error during the invocation of the cr_route in the failure_route[2]. Can you check if you've a rule with domain 2 in your carrierroute table?

And you probably also want to use revert_uri() and append_branch(); in the failure_route before respectivly after the new cr_route, otherwise you'll probably run in to problems as well. I just noticed that there is an error in the first example in the cr docs, i'll fix it now. The second example uses this two commands.

Regards,

Henning

Ok, so I think we are on to something, in the first transaction the uri was 3465@ which matched the database entry 34 in carrier 1 domain 1, but I also had strip_prefix-2 in there as well, so when the call goes to the failure route the uri changes to 65@, which did not have a match in carrier 1 domain 2.

So to test, I took the prefix matching and the strip_prefix out and simplified the database entry to this:

carrierroute table: carrier 1, domain 1, host A carrier 1, domain 1, host B carrier 1, domain 2, host C carrier 1, domain 2, host D

carrierfailureroute table: carrier 1, domain 1, host A, next domain 2 carrier 1, domain 1, host B, next domain 2 carrier 1, domain 2, host C, next domain 1 carrier 1, domain 2, host D, next domain 1

So now I see a call come in to kamailio and if host A & B are off-line, I see in the debug the failure_route try to send the call to host C & D, but I still have an error because I don't have a proper branch route setup, and this is confusing, I don't understand what that means? Here is the error:

The uri is 3477@, call come in and hits the route[2], then goes to failure_route.

May 27 11:04:04 [25716] INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 3477 was rewritten to sip:3477@10.10.14.104, carrier 1, domain 2 May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed

Here is the config snip:

route[2] { if(!cr_route("1", "1", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){ sl_send_reply("403", "Not allowed"); } else { t_on_failure("2"); t_relay(); } }

failure_route[2] { revert_uri(); if (t_check_status("404|408|5[0-9][0-9]")) { if(!cr_route("1", "2", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){ t_reply("403", "Not allowed"); } else { t_relay(); } } }

So I guess I'm stuck on the error "ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding". I'm not sure how to setup a branch route from the failure route.

Thanks

JR

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Uriel Rozenbaum uriel.rozenbaum@gmail.com wrote:

JR,

Maybe for subsequent routes you'd like to use $oU (original URI Username) that is the original number you intend to route.

Rgds, Uriel

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, JR Richardson jmr.richardson@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt@1und1.de wrote:

...

On Thursday 27 May 2010, JR Richardson wrote:

...

...

i assume according your description that the GW in question don't send a provisional response. Then the tm module should generate a internal 408 after fr_timer interval which you could then catch in a failure_route. Do you armed the appropriate failure_route in your cfg?

Yes, the gateway is totally off-line so no response comes back.  I do have failure_route in the config.  This is related to another active post from me "Carrierroute failover domain not working" so I'm sure this is a redundant post, but your input is appreciated.

The pastebin has my kamailio.cfg, the kamailio debug trace and the error received by sipp and the ngrep capture.

http://pastebin.com/VQziKYjE

Hi JR,

from the logs:

INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: rewrite_uri_recursor doesn't complete, uri 65, carrier 1, domain 2

this means that there was an error during the invocation of the cr_route in the failure_route[2]. Can you check if you've a rule with domain 2 in your carrierroute table?

And you probably also want to use revert_uri() and append_branch(); in the failure_route before respectivly after the new cr_route, otherwise you'll probably run in to problems as well. I just noticed that there is an error in the first example in the cr docs, i'll fix it now. The second example uses this two commands.

Regards,

Henning

Ok, so I think we are on to something, in the first transaction the uri was 3465@ which matched the database entry 34 in carrier 1 domain 1, but I also had strip_prefix-2 in there as well, so when the call goes to the failure route the uri changes to 65@, which did not have a match in carrier 1 domain 2.

So to test, I took the prefix matching and the strip_prefix out and simplified the database entry to this:

carrierroute table: carrier 1, domain 1, host A carrier 1, domain 1, host B carrier 1, domain 2, host C carrier 1, domain 2, host D

carrierfailureroute table: carrier 1, domain 1, host A, next domain 2 carrier 1, domain 1, host B, next domain 2 carrier 1, domain 2, host C, next domain 1 carrier 1, domain 2, host D, next domain 1

So now I see a call come in to kamailio and if host A & B are off-line, I see in the debug the failure_route try to send the call to host C & D, but I still have an error because I don't have a proper branch route setup, and this is confusing, I don't understand what that means?  Here is the error:

The uri is 3477@, call come in and hits the route[2], then goes to failure_route.

May 27 11:04:04 [25716] INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 3477 was rewritten to sip:3477@10.10.14.104, carrier 1, domain 2 May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed

Here is the config snip:

route[2] {        if(!cr_route("1", "1", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){                sl_send_reply("403", "Not allowed");        } else {                t_on_failure("2");                        t_relay();        } }

failure_route[2] {        revert_uri();        if (t_check_status("404|408|5[0-9][0-9]")) {                if(!cr_route("1", "2", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){                        t_reply("403", "Not allowed");                } else {                        t_relay();                }       } }

So I guess I'm stuck on the error "ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding".  I'm not sure how to setup a branch route from the failure route.

I read about append_branch() and added it to my failure route. Well, that allowed the route to branch and forward the calls to the failureroute gateways listed in the database. But now I have an issue with re-transmits in the failure route, it's like the failure route is sending 2 invited to the next_domain gateways. I really don't understand what I'm doing with the failure route and append_branch, here is a snip of my failure_route:

route[2] { if(!cr_route("1", "1", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){ sl_send_reply("403", "Not allowed"); } else { t_on_failure("2"); t_relay(); } }

failure_route[2] { revert_uri(); if (t_check_status("404|408|5[0-9][0-9]")) { if(!cr_route("1", "2", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){ t_reply("403", "Not allowed"); } else { append_branch(); t_relay(); } } }

Any guidance please?

Thanks.

JR