Hi,
I was configuring the modparams for LCR and Dialplan, I taken from
kamailio web site, but I think the params are outdated, because we need to
erase some lines to match with the tables in the DB, Im using Kamailio
3.3.3 and Siremis 3.3
Please can you give 1 example about how to make
Ricardo Martinez writes:
I have a doubt about the WEIGHT value in the LCR module. In the past we
used the Kamailio version 1.5.2 and in that version LCR weight was
calculated by a little script called lcr_weight_script.php. There was not
“percent” values like 50% and 50% for two gateways
) - Users
Mailing List
Subject: RE: [SR-Users] LCR Failover
Kamailio sends the following when the first gateway times out. Failure route is
never executed and next_gw specified in route block still results in the
following.
Asterisk placed call to kamailio:
U kamailio:5060 - asterisk:5060
SIP/2.0
-boun...@lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Daniel W. Graham
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:42 PM
To: SIP Router - Kamailio (OpenSER) and SIP Express Router (SER) - Users
Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] LCR Failover
Gave that a try still without
I am having issues with LCR failure route. I have two gateways specified in LCR
table, if I change the address of the gateway with highest priority to a bogus
IP, the failure route never seems to takes place and call is never routed to
second gateway.
Also, I have tested successful calls to
Daniel W. Graham writes:
I am having issues with LCR failure route. I have two gateways
specified in LCR table, if I change the address of the gateway with
highest priority to a bogus IP, the failure route never seems to takes
place and call is never routed to second gateway.
perhaps
-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Juha Heinanen
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:37 PM
To: SIP Router - Kamailio (OpenSER) and SIP Express Router (SER) - Users
Mailing List
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR Failover
Daniel W. Graham writes:
I am having issues
Daniel W. Graham writes:
Makes sense, would LCR module permit this scenario to work in a
different configuration? Or should I be looking at another module? I
could use dispatcher but I'd like the ability to add additional routes
based on prefix in the future.
if t_relay fails and failure
Camila Troncoso writes:
scripts are provided in lcr/utils directory that can be used to check
the probabilities resulting from a given set of weight values. Same can
be done with command 'kamctl eval_weights'.
I really don't understand what is the probability finally assign to each
Hi,
I have a question regarding LCR module and their weight variable.
If I have 4 gateways for the same prefix, and with the same priority:
Rule_id
Gw_id
Priority
weight
36
68
1
60
36
69
1
14
36
70
1
13
36
71
1
13
The weight variable acts as a percentage of utility
Camila Troncoso writes:
The weight variable acts as a percentage of utility of that gateway?
If for example I have 100 calls, the gateway with gw_id 68 will receive 60
calls , and the other 14, 13 and 13?
check README. it used to explain how weight is interpreted.
-- juha
Hello everyone. Configures the module LCR. I can't get him to take the next
on the list of priorities gateway if the first does not work. Function
next_gw capable of doing that? Did anyone realties that? If possible show
example.
Kamailio 3.3
Regards, Kirill
Nord7 writes:
Hello everyone. Configures the module LCR. I can't get him to take the next
on the list of priorities gateway if the first does not work. Function
next_gw capable of doing that? Did anyone realties that? If possible show
example.
you first call load_gws and then next_gw for
Hello,
I am noticing that some of the time (not always consistent) that load_gw()
/ next_gw() will not always return the gateway with the lowest priority
number.
For example, when I look up a route for 205595, I have three grp_ids
(gateways) that services the destination; with them being
Graham Wooden (personal) writes:
What kind of debugging can I do on this gateway selection process? I am
running 1.5.5 notls, and have approximately 425K routes. Kamailio is
started with -m 512 for the additional memory.
graham,
1.5.5 is quite old and lcr implementation has changed a lot
Thanks for the reply Juha. I have a 3.3.0 system that I have been trying
to get my routing logic converted over. I will keep working on that.
Thanks again,
-graham
On 8/6/12 12:12 PM, Juha Heinanen j...@tutpro.com wrote:
Graham Wooden (personal) writes:
What kind of debugging can I do on
Graham Wooden (personal) writes:
Thanks for the reply Juha. I have a 3.3.0 system that I have been trying
to get my routing logic converted over. I will keep working on that.
ok, let the list know if you experience any lcr problems with 3.3 and
we'll try to fix them.
-- juha
Hello,
I experience the same issue in 3.1.5
best regards,
Antanas Masevicius
On 2012.03.01 08:07, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Ben WIlliams writes:
here is the dump, prefix 8 should use gateway number 2. Its not a big
issue, I've managed to do it without LCR now.
INSERT INTO `lcr_gw` VALUES
Hello,
Does anyone can give me a proper example how setup LCR to be able to use
prefix and from_uri field.
Does not a route should be preferred if prefix or from_uri is more accurate
? I mean that if you st from_uri value instead of default NULL route
should be considered as better ?
Thank
Sébastien Cramatte writes:
Does not a route should be preferred if prefix or from_uri is more
accurate?
this should become clear if you read README carefully. from uri does
not participate in ordering of routes. it is just used to filter them.
-- juha
If uri_user is given, it is used, instead of Request-URI user part, to look
for matching gateways
In my config only lcr_id:
...
mhomed=1
...
if (!load_gws(1)) {
...
and not local registered user and not allow local users subscribe.
A'm this calls:
192.xxx.xxx.59
Thanks, it works as expected.
2012/4/12 Juha Heinanen j...@tutpro.com:
if (!load_gws(1, $rU, $fu)) {
--
В связи с отсутствием интереса общественности, конец света отменяется (с) ?
С Уважением, Механошин Алексей
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and
Hello all.
In my config added LCR routing by this manual:
http://www.amitnepal.com/using-lcr-with-kamailio/ and if added, to
'lcr_rule' table, uri to 'from_uri' column - kamailio always reply 503
- 'No More Gateways' :-( If remove data - routing work. A'm using last
kamailio from git ...
Please
Alexey Mechanoshin writes:
Please help me change my config to working routing by checking 'from_uri' .
Apr 10 17:01:23 r59vredfs /usr/sbin/kamailio[29582]: INFO: script:
New request - M=INVITE RURI=sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.50:5070
F=sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.59 T=sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.50:5070
based
Thanks for reply.
Ok, my change in DB to :
| 5 | 1 | 5499 | sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.59 | 0 | 1 |
and restart kamailio.
Then, in cfg:
request_route {
xlog(L_INFO, New request - M=$rm RURI=$ru F=$fu T=$tu
IP=$si ID=$ci\n);
Log:
New request - M=INVITE
i added a dbg statement in lcr_mod.c that prints log message if from uri
matching fails. you can try with latest master and see what you get
into syslog at debug level 3 or convert load_gws() LM_DBG statement to
LM_INFO statements and try at debug level 2.
-- juha
Ok, change to LM_INFO and retry invite from master branch, by kamailio:
#make FLAVOUR=kamailio cfg
...
#make deb
(Debian squeze)
Apr 11 17:55:41 r59vredfs /usr/sbin/kamailio[14873]: INFO: script:
Entering route[LCR] for method: INVITE sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.50:5070,
and rU=5499, caller_uri='0'
Apr
Alexey Mechanoshin writes:
Apr 11 17:55:41 r59vredfs /usr/sbin/kamailio[14873]: INFO: script:
request uri is sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.50:5070
Apr 11 17:55:41 r59vredfs /usr/sbin/kamailio[14873]: INFO: lcr
[lcr_mod.c:1835]: from uri did not match to from regex
sip:5...@192.xxx.xxx.59
your from
I wish that were the case, I am already logging this and there is nothing wrong
with the URI , it there seems to be no issues if I use another non-lcr route :(
also, I would really like and example of what the contents of the db should be.
Again, many thanks,
Jeff
xlog( L_NOTICE, here);
Grrr..
My apologies, your right! (whoda thunk it), the error was because this was for
a register, not a route, that has now been taken care of and I'll work a little
more on getting the right info into the LCR db tables.
May thanks, sorry about my ineptitude.
Jeff
On 2012-04-04, at 2:05
Jeff Russell writes:
I wish that were the case, I am already logging this and there is
nothing wrong with the URI , it there seems to be no issues if I use
another non-lcr route :(
xlog(L_NOTICE,route[IVR]: Original URI $tu\n);
you are logging $tu, which has nothing to do with lcr module.
I am still struggling a little with this, I have everything working, postgres
lcr modules loading what I am looking for for is a difinative working example
of the information in the db tables.
my db tables:
lcr_rule
(lcr_id, prefix, from_uri, stopper, enabled, id)
lcr_rule_target
(rule_id,
Jeff Russell writes:
I am still struggling a little with this, I have everything working,
postgres lcr modules loading what I am looking for for is a
difinative working example of the information in the db tables.
your problem:
at present I get the following errors 'error while parsing
As a rule, I have managed to work my way through any issues however, I would
really appreciate and help in getting the LCR module working (with postgres),
what I really need is working examples of working config and database tables,
Many thanks,
Jeff
The quality of responses to your request would be increased by a brief
statement of your objective. Despite its tantalising name, the 'lcr' module
may not be the most appropriate solution to your problem, depending on what
exactly your problem is.
--
This message was painstakingly thumbed out
Details...
We have a table with about 145,000 NPA/NXX's with differing rates and carriers,
I would like to use the LCR module to load this table and rewrite the URI based
on the best rate for dialled number and or a default route. The new 'in
memory LCR module should be efficient enough (we
Jeff Russell writes:
We have a table with about 145,000 NPA/NXX's with differing rates and
carriers, I would like to use the LCR module to load this table and
rewrite the URI based on the best rate for dialled number and or a
default route.
lcr module selects the gateways first based on
Ben WIlliams writes:
Its 3.2.2 from
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/kamailio:/telephony/CentOS_CentOS-6/
can you post dump of your lcr tables and i'll give a try with them?
-- juha
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio
Ben WIlliams writes:
Has anyone experienced this problem where lcr only works when from_uri
is null. When I change it to .* the match fails.
i just tested with latest master the case where from uri is .* and it
worked as expected. check that the rule is enabled in lcr_rule table
and that a gw
Has anyone experienced this problem where lcr only works when from_uri
is null. When I change it to .* the match fails.
Thanks
Ben
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
2011/12/21 Andreas Granig agra...@sipwise.com:
We could argue whether to not support square brackets and just allow
plain IP format, I've no strong opinions on that.
I agree. IPv6 has no brackets, that's just a notation for using in URI's.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
i...@aliax.net
Andreas Granig writes:
Please find attached the patch against git master, courtesy of my
colleague Richard Fuchs rfuchs at sipwise.com.
Please review and apply if acceptable.
andreas,
based on the patch i got impression that it uses current ip_addr column
of lcr_gw table to store also ipv6
Andreas Granig writes:
Exactly. Sorry, forgot that part. Since the patch supports optional
surrounding square brackets, the max. length of an IPv6 address is 47.
So it's either 8*4+7+2 for normal IPv6, like
[:::::::], or (6*4+5)+1+(4*3+3)+2 for
tunneling,
On 12/21/2011 02:43 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
We could argue whether to not support square brackets and just allow
plain IP format, I've no strong opinions on that. We just wanted to make
it as flexible as possible.
i cannot comment on storing ipv6 address, because i don't know anything
Andreas Granig writes:
Well, the question was not where to store the IPv6 address, rather than
in which format. As it is now, it'll allow it both with and without
surrounding square brackets. That's where I have no strong opinions.
ok, then push also change to lcr_gw schema and include an
Hello Juha,
On 12/15/2011 01:22 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Just realized that lcr module does not support IPv6 yet. Is there
already any work going on here? Otherwise we'd take this task over.
i don't know of such work. if you decide to do it, try to not cause any
performance hit for current
All,
Just realized that lcr module does not support IPv6 yet. Is there
already any work going on here? Otherwise we'd take this task over.
Andreas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio
Andreas Granig writes:
Just realized that lcr module does not support IPv6 yet. Is there
already any work going on here? Otherwise we'd take this task over.
i don't know of such work. if you decide to do it, try to not cause any
performance hit for current ipv4 usage.
-- juha
Hello
On kamailio 1.5.2, I need to choose the gw from a group according to its
weight. After trying unsuccessfully with different values I realized that the
help guide says that the load_gw functions can return gateways according to
gateway's randomized weight within its
group. So, I
Fabian Borot writes:
1- since it is randomized, does this mean that the weight parameter
actually can not guarantee that the weight value can decide how
gateways are ordered?
it is a randomized weight, not an absolute priority.
2- once I have the gws on the avp, is it posible to re-order
Thanks Juha, I figured that the avp reordering would be something like that.
The help file for versions 3.1 and 3.2 also says randomized weight, does it
really work on those versions?
this is from 3.2
***
When the function load_gws() is called, matching gateways (that
Fabian Borot writes:
The help file for versions 3.1 and 3.2 also says randomized weight,
does it really work on those versions?
yes it does.
or do you mean the priority column on the lcr_rule_target table
instead?
yes.
This may be a dumb question but since I don't get it I have to ask:
thank you Juha, I understand the purpose and that is how I intend to use it,
[more weights for gws with more capacity]
but I guess I should have rephrase my question as: what is the purpose of the
randomized weight value then? when you randomize it then the weight parameter
becomes useless.
Fabian Borot writes:
3 gws inside same group, and assuming the higher the weight the higher
the capacity
gw 1 with weight 20
gw 2 with weight 30
gw 3 with weight 60
I would like to send more calls to gw 3, then gw 2 then gw 1
but if when I do a load_gws, and I randomize the weight
Hello,
some comments inline...
On 8/18/11 12:59 PM, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2011, Spencer Thomason wrote:
Can anyone shed some light into the differences between the available LCR
modules? We have migrated our config from OpenSIPS where we used the
drouting module to
On Wednesday 17 August 2011, Spencer Thomason wrote:
Can anyone shed some light into the differences between the available LCR
modules? We have migrated our config from OpenSIPS where we used the
drouting module to Kamailio where we are using the lcr module. Our
ruleset is not crazy huge,
Hello all,
Can anyone shed some light into the differences between the available LCR
modules? We have migrated our config from OpenSIPS where we used the drouting
module to Kamailio where we are using the lcr module. Our ruleset is not crazy
huge, about 100k entries. Are there compelling
Spencer Thomason writes:
Can anyone shed some light into the differences between the available
LCR modules? We have migrated our config from OpenSIPS where we used
the drouting module to Kamailio where we are using the lcr module.
Our ruleset is not crazy huge, about 100k entries. Are there
...@hotmail.com
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:45:32 -0400
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR module
After installing the latest stable version 3.1.4 I noticed that I can not run
any 'lcr' commands from the 'kamctl fifo' interface. I noticed that the lcr.so
Hi,
With this LCR release from Kamailio 3.1 the table 'lcr_gw' makes four
fields unique: lcr_id, ip_addr, port and hostname.
This table is also responsible for setting 'strip' and 'tag' parameters
values for the gateways.
What I am trying to accomplish is to use different strip and tag
Hello,
I've some understanding problem on lcr module.
I've this route
route[LCR] {
xlog(L_INFO, ENTRO IN ROUTE LCR
** \n);
if (!load_gws(1)) {
sl_send_reply(503, Unable to load gateways);
exit;
}
I've some understanding problem on lcr module.
based on info you gave, i cannot say anything. check how your request
uri looks like when you call load_gws() and after you have called
next_gw() and check how your tables look like. there is no need to
inspect the internal avps unless you
) and SIP Express Router (SER) - Users
Mailing List
Asunto: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use
Ricardo Martinez writes:
Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()”
is
used to mark a gw down?.
as the README tells, the function defuncts the gateway of previous
next_gw() call
Ricardo Martinez writes:
Maybe I did not read the README file so well, but I can't find where it says
that the defunct_gw() function defunct a gateway of previous next_gw()
call.
well, it is sort of indirectly specified if you read what is said about
defunct_gw_avp and lcr_id_avp, but i'll
Hi,
On 03/31/2011 03:38 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Ricardo Martinez writes:
This 408 response code is generated in the failure_route only? what if
a gateway really answers a call with 408 because there was no answer from
the client... this response is handled by the on_reply route , isn't?
Andreas Granig writes:
Until 1.5.x, there has been a t_local_replied() in tm for checking
whether the reply (e.g. the 408) has been generated locally. What
happened to that one? How would you do this in 3.x reliably without
depending on an 1xx response from the outside?
beats me. i don't
maybe you can use t_any_timeout? I do not know if it handles internal
and external timeout identical
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm#t_any_timeout
On 31.03.2011 16:58, Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
On 03/31/2011 03:38 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Ricardo Martinez writes:
This
I would say:
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm.html#t_branch_timeout
would be more appropriate for detection local timeouts.
If a reply is generated locally (from the script) I don't think that
will end up in the failure route (I have not tested this scenario).
And even if it
Hello.
Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()” is
used to mark a gw down?.
I understand that the gateway is marked down for period of time with the
command, but how can I check if a gateway is down?. Can someone show me
this with an example in the
Ricardo Martinez writes:
Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()” is
used to mark a gw down?.
as the README tells, the function defuncts the gateway of previous
next_gw() call.
I understand that the gateway is marked down for period of time with the
command,
: miércoles, 09 de febrero de 2011 18:00
Para: Antanas Masevicius
CC: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] LCR module : same IP address for different prefix.
Antanas Masevicius writes:
Thank you for your work! This feature is highly needed i suspect.
it would be possible
Ricardo Martinez writes:
How can access this change in the code?. Do I need to update to the last
version? 3.1.2 ??
Hope you can help me.
currently the trivial change (do not check uniqueness of gateway's ip
address) is only in master branch. patch to 3.1 is included below.
-- juha
**
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
If you reload the rules at runtime, you may need 2x shared memory size
for lcr rules - Juha can confirm that the module is (re-)loading rules
in a separate memory structure and then swaps with the active one, and
frees the old one afterwards, since I am not
Hello,
popping in to add some clarifications/hints regarding some statements in
this thread...
Loading of LCR rules from database is done through private memory, but
the records are loaded in chunks. So you should be fine with 4MB of
memory. If it is not enough for startup/reload time, just
2011/3/13 Graham Wooden gra...@g-rock.net:
I have now approximately 400,000 routes defined in my LCR table and I would
like to make sure that I have enough memory allocated for it. I read
somewhere (a non official Kamailio site) about PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE and
SHM_MEM_SIZE needing to be altered
I set the shared memory to 512M via the command line at program start
and do not have any problems with my 500k routes.
Thank You
Stagg Shelton
For support please email supp...@vocalcloud.com
Sent from my mobile phone
On Mar 12, 2011, at 7:50 PM, Graham Wooden gra...@g-rock.net wrote:
Hi
Thanks Stagg and Iñaki.
I already had the -m 512 in my init file, so it appears I am ok there.
I went ahead and recompiled with PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE to 16MB and I'll see how
it goes.
Thanks again,
-graham
On 3/13/11 7:39 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo i...@aliax.net wrote:
2011/3/13 Graham Wooden
Graham Wooden writes:
I already had the -m 512 in my init file, so it appears I am ok there.
I went ahead and recompiled with PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE to 16MB and I'll see how
it goes.
graham,
lcr module (at least the later versions) does not use any pkg memory.
it keeps all gws and rules in shm
Hi there,
I have now approximately 400,000 routes defined in my LCR table and I would
like to make sure that I have enough memory allocated for it. I read
somewhere (a non official Kamailio site) about PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE and
SHM_MEM_SIZE needing to be altered to handle the increased routes.
Hi,
Juha - you said last year, that the kamctl-LCR-commands should be DISABLED
for SR 3.1.x, because the kamctl script was not yet adapted to your new DB
structure for LCR tables.
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-October/009356.html
Hi,
Thank you very much for the information. But do we have to restart
kamailio in order to have the effect ?
Thank You
Amit Nepal
Systems Administrator
Phoenix Internet
Phone: 602-385-0731
602-234-0917#112
http://www.phoenixinternet.net
On 2/25/2011 2:02 AM, Klaus Feichtinger
Klaus Feichtinger writes:
Juha - you said last year, that the kamctl-LCR-commands should be DISABLED
for SR 3.1.x, because the kamctl script was not yet adapted to your new DB
structure for LCR tables.
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2010-October/009356.html
-- command 'lcr' - manage least cost routes (lcr)
lcr show_gws... show database gateways
lcr show_routes show database routes
lcr dump_gws... show in memory gateways
lcr dump_routes show in memory routes
lcr reload reload lcr gateways and routes
lcr eval_weights
Hi Juha,
I am using kamailio 3.1.2.
Thank You
Amit Nepal
Systems Administrator
Phoenix Internet
Phone: 602-385-0731
602-234-0917#112
http://www.phoenixinternet.net
On 2/24/2011 2:16 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Amit Nepal writes:
but when i issue #kamctl lcr show_gws , it says
Amit Nepal writes:
I am using kamailio 3.1.2.
i don't use myself kamctl. i use sip router ctl that i call myself
sip-proxy_ctl and its help tells me about lcr commands. perhaps someone
else is able to tell you, what this command is called by default.
-- juha
root@rautu:~# sip-proxy_ctl
Lcr is working fine but Why would i get LCR commands disabled ?
kamctl lcr reload
ERROR: command disabled--
Thank You
Amit Nepal
Systems Administrator
Phoenix Internet
Phone: 602-385-0731
602-234-0917#112
http://www.phoenixinternet.net
___
Juha,
Thank you for your work! This feature is highly needed i suspect.
Antanas
NTT
On 2011.02.09 06:25, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
Antanas Masevicius writes:
I already wrote on this list about this issue. Currently the only way to
do it is to disable duplicate gws
Antanas Masevicius writes:
Thank you for your work! This feature is highly needed i suspect.
it would be possible to cherry-pick the patch also to 3.1, but i don't
know if that is appropriate, because removing gw uniqueness check is not
strictly a bug fix. it is just a piece of not needed
Juha Heinanen writes:
Antanas Masevicius writes:
I already wrote on this list about this issue. Currently the only way to
do it is to disable duplicate gws checking in sources itself.
In general, gw duplication checking should be extended to check not only
by ip_addr or its hostname,
Hello Ricardo,
I already wrote on this list about this issue. Currently the only way to
do it is to disable duplicate gws checking in sources itself.
In general, gw duplication checking should be extended to check not only
by ip_addr or its hostname, but to include 'tag' and even 'strip' columns.
Antanas Masevicius writes:
I already wrote on this list about this issue. Currently the only way to
do it is to disable duplicate gws checking in sources itself.
In general, gw duplication checking should be extended to check not only
by ip_addr or its hostname, but to include 'tag' and even
Nobody on this one?.
Ricardo.-
*De:* Ricardo Martinez [mailto:rmarti...@redvoiss.net]
*Enviado el:* miércoles, 02 de febrero de 2011 17:58
*Para:* 'sr-users@lists.sip-router.org'
*Asunto:* LCR module : same IP address for different prefix.
Hello.
We’re using the LCR module with version
Ricardo Martinez writes:
We’re using the LCR module with version 3.1.1 of Kamailio. We’re trying to
add two gateways, with the same IP address, we have this configuration
running in the previous version of Kamailio (v 1.5), without any problem,
but in this version seems to have some issues.
Hello.
We’re using the LCR module with version 3.1.1 of Kamailio. We’re trying to
add two gateways, with the same IP address, we have this configuration
running in the previous version of Kamailio (v 1.5), without any problem,
but in this version seems to have some issues.
This is what I’m
Hi there,
I have a requirement now that for one of my GW¹s in my LCR, needs to be
sourced from another IP address (two different rate-decks with the carrier).
This ratedeck will always be at least 2nd inline ...
I was thinking something along the sorts ... Some pseudo code:
failure_route [2] {
Do the provider gateways have the same IP address for the different rate
plans? If the gateways are different then the following may be relevant.
if (next_gw()) {
# prepare for lcr failover
t_on_failure(2);
if($rd==aaa.aaa.aaa.aaa)
Same destination IP for both rate decks, so I need to go by something else,
like the gw_name.
- Reply message -
From: Stagg Shelton st...@vocalcloud.com
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 8:27 am
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR next_gw() - certain GW, source from other IP address
To: sr-users@lists.sip
message -
From: Stagg Shelton st...@vocalcloud.com
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 8:27 am
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR next_gw() - certain GW, source from other IP address
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Do the provider gateways have the same IP address for the different rate
plans
need to go by something else,
like the gw_name.
- Reply message -
From: Stagg Shelton st...@vocalcloud.com
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 8:27 am
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR next_gw() - certain GW, source from other IP address
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Do the provider gateways have
destination IP for both rate decks, so I need to go by
something else, like the gw_name.
- Reply message -
From: Stagg Shelton st...@vocalcloud.com
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 8:27 am
Subject: [SR-Users] LCR next_gw() - certain GW, source from
101 - 200 of 258 matches
Mail list logo
