Hi Dave,
Se RFC3261:
21.5.4 503 Service Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to process the request due to a
temporary overloading or maintenance of the server. The server MAY
indicate when the client should retry the request in a Retry-After
header field. If no Retry-After
Thank you very much!!
I'm doing class 4 switching and for some reason all my customers expect a
503 as a slow down your sending me too much traffic. Not the I'm broken.
Is the 500 the proper way to tell them to back off a little. Is there a
header that should be used to tell them how much to back o
Hi Dave,
See: http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreFcn16#toc34 (added the
docs for this module)
Regards,
Bogdan
Dave Singer wrote:
> Julien,
>
> I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up with this:
> if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
> t_reply("503
The link I posted is about the new core parameter:
disable_503_translation
for disabling the 503 -> 500 translation.
So you can control it.
Regards,
Bogdan
thrillerbee wrote:
> Bogdan,
>
> Is this or could this be configurable? It, unfortunately, breaks a
> lot of existing applications
Hi,
Just to explain in detail, since I'm a bit puzzled at an application
needing this...NOT doing so creates the potential for breaking a lot
more.
The 503 response is used to indicate to the received that
"I am completely broken, please dont send *anything* to me for a while."
A proxy that f
Julien,
I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up with this:
if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
exit;
}
I think you could use t_reply("503", $(rr)); (note the use of
to indicate the reply con
Bogdan,
Is this or could this be configurable? It, unfortunately, breaks a lot of
existing applications.
Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> see:
> http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
>
> Regards,
> Bogdan
>
> Jul
Hi Julien,
see:
http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
Regards,
Bogdan
Julien Chavanton wrote:
> Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>
> The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>
> INVITE :
>
> 10.0.20.14(
Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
INVITE :
10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
RESPONSE :
U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
U 10.2.0.1:5060
