Hi Jock,
My approach was to use a common subroute (try_next) to be used from
both failure route (if you get a failure at SIP level) and from main
route, if relay fails. Of course the t_was_cancelled() needs to be kept
in failure route (as it is specific to that type of route) :
oute[try_next]
Greetings Bogdan;
Unfortunately there's a minor hitch in the getalong with this suggestion -
the failure route utilises two functions that can only be called from a
failure_route block (t_was_cancelled() and ds_next_domain()).
>From my understanding of what you're suggesting below, I should move
I think jock case was internal blacklisting (in opensips) of the
destination IP.
Regards,
Bogdan
Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Ok, that makes sense actually..
>
> so this block:
> route[1] {
> t_on_failure("2");
>
> xlog("L_WARN", "Attempting to relay call to $ru\n");
>
> if (!t_relay()) {
> xlog(
Ok, that makes sense actually..
so this block:
route[1] {
t_on_failure("2");
xlog("L_WARN", "Attempting to relay call to $ru\n");
if (!t_relay()) {
xlog("L_WARN", "[$Tf] t_relay fail\n");
return;
}
return;
}
Instead of firing failure_route[2] (since it isn't a SIP failure)
it'll hit
Brett,
if t_relay() fails (whatever reason, like transport issues, IP problems,
URI problems, etc), it will not end up in failure route! failure route
is for SIP failures, not for any kind of failures.
Also see the 0x02 flag in t_relay() docs:
http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/1.6.x
Bogdan,
I think the ds_next_doman in the failure route should have been
called. On the initial t_relay, the failure route was already armed
and should have caught send failures. The top of the failure route
catches specific SIP codes, but the bottom half, including the
ds_next_domain should have fi
Hi Jock,
I guess the problem is detecting the failure . The failure route catches
only SIP failures (like you sent the requests and you get nothing or
negative reply); but failure route does not catch sending error (like in
your case).
So, you should do something like:
route[try_next] {
h
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Brett Nemeroff wrote:
> Where is your failure route? :)
> -Brett
>
>
I intentionally chose to not include it, along with the other 200 lines of
config, for simplicity, but you're right, given this is a failure, I clearly
should've, duh :)
failure_route[2] {
Where is your failure route? :)
-Brett
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Jock McKechnie
wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> I'm attempting to set up a fail-over only scenario using dispatcher and am
> encountering some problems. I'm using dispatcher since we're already
> utilising it for load balancing,
Greetings all;
I'm attempting to set up a fail-over only scenario using dispatcher and am
encountering some problems. I'm using dispatcher since we're already
utilising it for load balancing, so it makes sense to reuse the tool, and
according to the OpenSIPS 1.6 dispatcher module documentation it
10 matches
Mail list logo
