25 Jun
2010
25 Jun
'10
10:58 p.m.
Hey everyone,
Just wanted to bounce some things off the list to make sure I'm not heading
down the wrong path here. I'll quickly explain my problem and then explain
my plan to deal with it. Please let me know if anyone sees an issue here.
Problem: I need to send FROM two different IP addresses based on the LCR
group returned from next_gw();. For example, if the gateway returned is in
group_id=1 from the LCR I need to send FROM 1.1.1.1:5060, if it's from
group_id=2, I need to send FROM 1.1.1.2:5060. I need to do this on
REQUEST_ROUTE and FAILURE_ROUTE. Here is what I am thinking will work:
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_one=s:1.1.1.1:5060")
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_two=s:1.1.1.2:5060")
route{
load_gws();
next_gw();
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
}else if(to_gw("2")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
}
}
Sorry for not just trying this out on my own. I currently don't have access
to a dev machine, and I need to make changes to the live script... so I
would prefer not to have a ton of restarts while trying to work the bugs
out.
Thanks.
25 Jun
25 Jun
11:12 p.m.
New subject: New functionality LCR + force_send_socket() - sanity check
Geoffrey Mina writes:
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_one=s:1.1.1.1:5060")
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_two=s:1.1.1.2:5060")
route{
load_gws();
next_gw();
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
}else if(to_gw("2")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
}
}
force_send_socket does what do want to do, but i don't know if it
accepts pv argument. also, i don't see why you need to use pv argument,
rather than write force_send_socket(1.1.1.1:5060), etc.
-- juha
11:14 p.m.
New subject: New functionality LCR + force_send_socket() - sanity check
Juha Heinanen writes:
> if(to_gw("1")){
> force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
> }else if(to_gw("2")){
> force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
> }
also, in 3.0 and later, to_gw takes lcr_id as argument, not gw group.
-- juha
11:28 p.m.
OK, but since this is 1.5, I would still use the GW Group ID, correct?
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
> if(to_gw("1")){
> force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
> }else if(to_gw("2")){
> force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
> }
also, in 3.0 and later, to_gw takes lcr_id as argument, not gw group.
-- juha
25 Jun
25 Jun
11:31 p.m.
The only reason I would choose to keep the values at the top is because I
have 4 machines which all need a copy of the script.... but would need the
IP changed per machine. Since the IP will be referenced in both
REQUEST_ROUTE and FAILURE_ROUTE, i just figured it was easier to store in a
PV instead of having to change it 2 places for each machine.
Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Geoffrey Mina writes:
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_one=s:1.1.1.1:5060")
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_two=s:1.1.1.2:5060")
route{
load_gws();
next_gw();
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
}else if(to_gw("2")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
}
}
force_send_socket does what do want to do, but i don't know if it
accepts pv argument. also, i don't see why you need to use pv argument,
rather than write force_send_socket(1.1.1.1:5060), etc.
-- juha
11:50 p.m.
OK, I am running into some errors when starting my script:
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if(to_gw("3")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}else if(to_gw("4")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:pv_parse_spec: bad parameters
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fixup_pvar: parsing of pseudo variable 1 failed!
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fix_actions: fixing failed (code=-1) at cfg line 348
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
CRITICAL:core:fix_expr: fix_actions error
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:main: failed to fix configuration with err code -1
Perhaps I an confused about how the to_gw() function of the LCR module is to
be used. In my "gw" table, I have gateways with grp_id 1, 3, and 4. I am
assuming that is the value I should be checking for in the to_gw() function,
but it seems to be expecting a pseudo variable or something.
What am I missing?
Thanks!
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Geoffrey Mina <geoffreymina(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
The only reason I would choose to keep the values at
the top is because I
have 4 machines which all need a copy of the script.... but would need the
IP changed per machine. Since the IP will be referenced in both
REQUEST_ROUTE and FAILURE_ROUTE, i just figured it was easier to store in a
PV instead of having to change it 2 places for each machine.
Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Geoffrey Mina writes:
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_one=s:1.1.1.1:5060")
modparam("pv","shvset","gw_two=s:1.1.1.2:5060")
route{
load_gws();
next_gw();
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_one));
}else if(to_gw("2")){
force_send_socket($shv(gw_two));
}
}
force_send_socket does what do want to do, but i don't know if it
accepts pv argument. also, i don't see why you need to use pv argument,
rather than write force_send_socket(1.1.1.1:5060), etc.
-- juha
26 Jun
26 Jun
2:45 a.m.
2010/6/25 Geoffrey Mina <geoffreymina(a)gmail.com>om>:
OK, I am running into some errors when starting my
script:
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if(to_gw("3")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}else if(to_gw("4")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:pv_parse_spec: bad parameters
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fixup_pvar: parsing of pseudo variable 1 failed!
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fix_actions: fixing failed (code=-1) at cfg line 348
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
CRITICAL:core:fix_expr: fix_actions error
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:main: failed to fix configuration with err code -1
Perhaps I an confused about how the to_gw() function of the LCR module is to
be used. In my "gw" table, I have gateways with grp_id 1, 3, and 4. I am
assuming that is the value I should be checking for in the to_gw() function,
but it seems to be expecting a pseudo variable or something.
Theorically (according to the LCR documentation), "to_gw()" must be
used when processing in-dialog requests. However I'm not sure of the
cause of your error, which is exactly the line 384 in your script?
Anyhow I suggest you a different approach:
- Set a different flag for each gw (in LCR 'gw' table) depending on
the sending socket that must be used.
- After calling 'next_gw()' inspect the value of the gw flags (stored
in a configured AVP) and choose which 'force_send_socket()' to use.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
27 Jun
27 Jun
6:27 p.m.
OK, couple more questions regarding my two options. So far I can
potentially use to_gw_grp("1") OR I can use the flags AVP to store a flag
which dictates what my send_socket will be. Here are my challenges with
each:
1 - to_gw_grp("1"). How would I ensure that subsequent in-dialog requests
are sent from the same socket as the original INVITE to my ITSP.
Asterisk --> INVITE --> KAMAILIO -->
(next_gw()/to_gw_grp("1")/force_send_socket() --> INVITE --> ITSP
Asterisk --> BYE --> KAMAILIO --> (if(loose_route(){t_relay();}) -- BYE -->
ITSP
How would I call the to_gw_grp("1") in this scenario? Would I just call it
after calling loose_route(), but before calling t_relay()?
2 - using AVP flags. The AVP is only set after the initial call to
next_gw(), how would I have access to this flag for in-dialog requests? I
could perhaps store it in a htable with call-id as the key and overwrite the
value each time we call next_gw() (in the event there are failures)... just
not sure this is the best idea.
Thanks to everyone for your time and effort here.
Much appreciated!
-Geoff
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
2010/6/25 Geoffrey Mina
<geoffreymina(a)gmail.com>om>:
OK, I am running into some errors when starting
my script:
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if(to_gw("3")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}else if(to_gw("4")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:pv_parse_spec: bad parameters
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fixup_pvar: parsing of pseudo variable 1 failed!
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:fix_actions: fixing failed (code=-1) at cfg line 348
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
CRITICAL:core:fix_expr: fix_actions error
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:main: failed to fix configuration with err code -1
Perhaps I an confused about how the to_gw() function of the LCR module is
to
be used. In my "gw" table, I have
gateways with grp_id 1, 3, and 4. I
am
assuming that is the value I should be checking
for in the to_gw()
function,
but it seems to be expecting a pseudo variable or
something.
Theorically (according to the LCR documentation), "to_gw()" must be
used when processing in-dialog requests. However I'm not sure of the
cause of your error, which is exactly the line 384 in your script?
Anyhow I suggest you a different approach:
- Set a different flag for each gw (in LCR 'gw' table) depending on
the sending socket that must be used.
- After calling 'next_gw()' inspect the value of the gw flags (stored
in a configured AVP) and choose which 'force_send_socket()' to use.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
6:48 p.m.
2010/6/27 Geoffrey Mina <geoffreymina(a)gmail.com>om>:
Asterisk --> INVITE --> KAMAILIO -->
(next_gw()/to_gw_grp("1")/force_send_socket() --> INVITE --> ITSP
Asterisk --> BYE --> KAMAILIO --> (if(loose_route(){t_relay();}) -- BYE -->
ITSP
How would I call the to_gw_grp("1") in this scenario? Would I just call it
after calling loose_route(), but before calling t_relay()?
Yes, why not? an in-dialog request (as BYE) has a RURI pointing to the
server address (the Contact URI of the 200 OK fot the initial INVITE).
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
8:29 p.m.
Geoffrey Mina writes:
1 - to_gw_grp("1"). How would I ensure that
subsequent in-dialog requests
are sent from the same socket as the original INVITE to my ITSP.
Asterisk --> INVITE --> KAMAILIO -->
(next_gw()/to_gw_grp("1")/force_send_socket() --> INVITE --> ITSP
Asterisk --> BYE --> KAMAILIO --> (if(loose_route(){t_relay();}) -- BYE -->
ITSP
How would I call the to_gw_grp("1") in this scenario? Would I just call it
after calling loose_route(), but before calling t_relay()?
yes (i think inaki already replied to this). another possibility might
be to store the socket info in r-r header of initial request.
-- juha
28 Jun
28 Jun
8:55 a.m.
New subject: New functionality LCR + force_send_socket() - sanity check
Hello
I use same scenario as Geoffrey. But I have problem with
force_send_socket() in failure_route[1].
If is first gw online, then everything is ok, force send socket work.
But when first gw is offline and lcr try second gw, then message go
trough socket which is called on first gw. I am using kamailio 1.4.2. Is
this a bug?
Thank you
Ernest
On 27. 06. 2010 19:29, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Geoffrey Mina writes:
--
<http://novatel.si/>
Ernest Mavrel
technical support
Novatel d.o.o.
informacijske tehnologije
Mariborska 88, SI - 3000 Celje
tel:*+386 (0)82 800 823
*fax:*+386 (0)82 800 821
*mobile:+386 (0)51 436 453
e-mail:ernest.mavrel@novatel.si <mailto:ernest.mavrel@novatel.si>
1 - to_gw_grp("1"). How would I ensure
that subsequent in-dialog requests
are sent from the same socket as the original INVITE to my ITSP.
Asterisk --> INVITE --> KAMAILIO -->
(next_gw()/to_gw_grp("1")/force_send_socket() --> INVITE --> ITSP
Asterisk --> BYE --> KAMAILIO --> (if(loose_route(){t_relay();}) -- BYE
-->
ITSP
How would I call the to_gw_grp("1") in this scenario? Would I just call it
after calling loose_route(), but before calling t_relay()?
yes (i think inaki already replied to this). another possibility might
be to store the socket info in r-r header of initial request.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
9:08 a.m.
New subject: New functionality LCR + force_send_socket() - sanity check
Ernest Mavrel writes:
I use same scenario as Geoffrey. But I have problem
with
force_send_socket() in failure_route[1].
If is first gw online, then everything is ok, force send socket work.
But when first gw is offline and lcr try second gw, then message go
trough socket which is called on first gw. I am using kamailio 1.4.2. Is
this a bug?
i don't know if it is a bug or not, but i call force_send_socket in
branch route and it has worked as expected.
-- juha
11:41 a.m.
2010/6/28 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>om>:
Ernest Mavrel writes:
It's required to use to_gw_grp() in branch_route as changes done by
LCR in the RURI are not visible until etering into branch_route.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
I use same scenario as Geoffrey. But I have
problem with
force_send_socket() in failure_route[1].
If is first gw online, then everything is ok, force send socket work.
But when first gw is offline and lcr try second gw, then message go
trough socket which is called on first gw. I am using kamailio 1.4.2. Is
this a bug?
i don't know if it is a bug or not, but i call force_send_socket in
branch route and it has worked as expected.
7:07 p.m.
OK, I have decided to use htable to store the AVP returned by the LCR
module. I have everything working, except I have run into a strange issue
with my failure_route logic.
Immediately after calling next_gw() in my initial REQUEST_ROUTE or
FAILURE_ROUTE, I populate an htable which maps the socket I should send all
in-dialog requests from. This gets reset each time we call next_gw() in the
event that a gateway can't service my request for some reason. The issue I
have is that on FAILURE_ROUTE scenarios where I am fetching the next
gateway, it doesn't appear that the force_send_socket() is actually working
for subsequent calls. The real example I am seeing is below. I am seeing
my log in the ELSE statement, but Kamailio continues to send FROM
X.X.X.180. Not sure what I could be doing wrong...
method status fromip toip send_grp INVITE
udp:X.X.X.190:5060 udp:X.X.X.179:5060
INVITE
udp:X.X.X.180:5060 udp:216.82.224.202:5060 1 INVITE 100 udp:
216.82.224.202:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE 408 udp:216.82.224.202:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE
udp:X.X.X.180:5060 udp:216.82.225.202:5060 1 INVITE 100 udp:
216.82.225.202:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE 404 udp:216.82.225.202:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE
udp:X.X.X.180:5060 udp:209.249.3.78:5060 0 INVITE 100 udp:209.249.3.78:5060
udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE 503 udp:209.249.3.78:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE
udp:X.X.X.180:5060 udp:208.93.226.12:5060 0 INVITE 100 udp:
208.93.226.12:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE 503 udp:208.93.226.12:5060 udp:X.X.X.180:5060
INVITE 503 udp:X.X.X.179:5060 udp:X.X.X.190:5060
ACK
udp:X.X.X.190:5060 udp:X.X.X.179:5060
if(next_gw()){
$sht(send_grp=>$ci) = $avp(i:712);
if($sht(send_grp=>$ci) == 1){
xlog("L_INFO", "failure_route[1] - send_group==1; sending
from .180 $ru");
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if($sht(send_grp=>$ci) == 2){
xlog("L_INFO", "failure_route[1] - send_group==2; sending
from .180 $ru");
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}else{
xlog("L_INFO", "failure_route[1] - default send group;
sending from .179 $ru");
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}
t_on_reply("1");
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
}else{
# let the reply go upstram - it is the default action
xlog("L_ERR", "No Next Gateway - M=$rm RURI=$ru F=$fu T=$tu
IP=$si ID=$ci\n");
exit;
}
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
2010/6/28 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>om>:
Ernest Mavrel writes:
It's required to use to_gw_grp() in branch_route as changes done by
LCR in the RURI are not visible until etering into branch_route.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
I use same scenario as Geoffrey. But I have
problem with
force_send_socket() in failure_route[1].
If is first gw online, then everything is ok, force send socket work.
But when first gw is offline and lcr try second gw, then message go
trough socket which is called on first gw. I am using kamailio 1.4.2. Is
this a bug?
i don't know if it is a bug or not, but i call force_send_socket in
branch route and it has worked as expected.
26 Jun
26 Jun
9:47 a.m.
Geoffrey Mina writes:
OK, I am running into some errors when starting my
script:
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if(to_gw("3")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}else if(to_gw("4")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:pv_parse_spec: bad parameters
you need to call to_gw_grp("1").
-- juha
27 Jun
27 Jun
1:32 a.m.
2010/6/26 Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>om>:
Geoffrey Mina writes:
That is not documented in 1.5:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/lcr.html#id2527249
In fact suh documentation states that to_gw("1") is the correct syntax. ¿?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
OK, I am running into some errors when starting
my script:
if(to_gw("1")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060);
}else if(to_gw("3")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060);
}else if(to_gw("4")){
force_send_socket(X.X.X.189:5060);
}
Jun 25 16:45:14 atl-sipgateway1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[15942]:
ERROR:core:pv_parse_spec: bad parameters
you need to call to_gw_grp("1").
8:19 a.m.
you need to
call to_gw_grp("1").
That is not documented in 1.5:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/lcr.html#id2527249
In fact suh documentation states that to_gw("1") is the correct
syntax.
5261
days inactive
5264
days old
17 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ernest Mavrel -
Geoffrey Mina -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Juha Heinanen