Hi Brett,
I just tried to reproduce what you described - I have a simple setup
(based on the script) I tried the following configurations:
1) missed_call flag set in the request_route only -> log record generated
2) missed_call flag set in failure_route only -> log record generated
3) missed_cal
I explicitly sent out a t_reply on failure.
And yes, it seems that I need to set it prior to the failure route..
however, it's before everything in the config now. so I'm not sure really
what it needs to be before.. maybe the original t_relay in which the call
failed.
BTW, I'm using the dialog mo
Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Bogdan,
> RURI modified by carrierroute, then t_relay(). Far end replies with
> 503. Call carrierroute again, which errors since the only other route
> has a prob=0.
ok, but after the cc fails, you sent out a reply with t_reply() or you
let the received 503 to propagate
Bogdan,
RURI modified by carrierroute, then t_relay(). Far end replies with 503.
Call carrierroute again, which errors since the only other route has a
prob=0. Without the failed_transaction_flag actually armed before the
failure_route, I get no database activitiy at all..
Nothing else is using th
Hi Brett,
the transactions you miss in the acc are replied in failure_route with
t_reply() or you are passing the received reply ?
also, are you sharing the "failed_transaction_flag" with other flags ?
Regards,
Bogdan
Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Hello All,
> I'm going to reply to my own message. I
Hi Raul,
in both cases it is exactly the same. there is no difference between :).
Regards,
Bogdan
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
>
> AFAIK, it's a very bad idea to change flag status inside failure_route,
> branch_route or reply_route. I suggest you to do it on route[] blocks, and
> call
Raul,
This is very interesting, I did not know that. Can anyone explain the reason
for this?
I always figured that calling a route from a failure/branch/onreply/etc
route was the same as if the codeblock was in that section.
-Brett
2009/3/30 Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
> On Monday 30 March 2
On Monday 30 March 2009 21:34:29 Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Hello All,
> I'm going to reply to my own message. I'm not sure if the upgrade actually
> had anything to do with this, but I suspect it did..
>
> I log everything, failed, missed, acked, etc into one acc table. I was
> setting the acc flag r
Hello All,
I'm going to reply to my own message. I'm not sure if the upgrade actually
had anything to do with this, but I suspect it did..
I log everything, failed, missed, acked, etc into one acc table. I was
setting the acc flag right at the very very top of my script to just catch
everything.
Hey All,
So I've recently upgraded my 1.4 install to 1.5 and I've noticed, I don't
get INVITEs that are replied with a 503 stored in ACC anymore, the whole
transaction is missing.
I used to get those. I haven't changed any of my acc params. :/
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Brett
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
