Hello Igor and Henning, I used t_on_branch_failure() instead of t_on_failure() as Igor suggested and now I can see that *event_route[tm:branch-failure:FAILURE_SIP_TO_SIP]* is executed for both Htek 488 and Zoiper 415 responces.
Thanks a lot for your help! 2018-09-08 9:46 GMT+03:00 Igor Olhovskiy <igorolhovs...@gmail.com>: > I think you need to use > t_on_branch_failure() > If I got you correctly > > Regards, Igor > On Sep 6, 2018, 10:06 PM +0300, Henning Westerholt <h...@kamailio.org>, > wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2018, 14:03:10 CEST schrieb Володимир Іванець: > > I wanted to ask those who know if Kamailio's behavior I'm facing is > expected or I should make some improvements to the configuration. Kamailio > version is 5.1.0. > > I have a route where RTPEngine parameters are being collected and > *rtpengine_offer()* is called. After that *t_on_reply("REPLY_SIP_TO_SIP" > );* > followed by the *t_on_failure("FAILURE_SIP_TO_SIP");* are used. The idea > is > to process all responces except 415 or 488 from UAC as usual in > *onreply_route[REPLY_SIP_TO_SIP]* and use > *failure_route[FAILURE_SIP_TO_SIP]* to update SDP with *rtpengine_offer()* > if necessary. > > *onreply_route[REPLY_SIP_TO_SIP]* just goes to *exit;* if *$rs* equals 415 > or 488. This works fine with Htek phone which sends 100, 180 and then 488. > But I can not see *failure_route[FAILURE_SIP_TO_SIP]* execution for calls > to Zoiper which replies with 100 and immediately 415. > > t_on_failure(failure_route) documentation says: "Sets failure routing > block, to which control is passed after a transaction completed with a > negative result but before sending a final reply." and to be honest I don't > really understand how lacking of responce prevents failure_route from > executing. > > > Hello, > > I did not understand you completely here. Did you receive a 415 and the > failure route is not entered, or you did not receive a response as stated > in > the last sentence? > > If the failure_route is entered for the 488, then it should be also entered > for the 415. I am not aware of a special handling of this code in tm. (Only > that 415 is one of the replies that get a priority comparing to normal > 4xx.) > > I would suggest to try with debugging enabled and compare the logs for a > working, and for a non-working call. You could also try to concentrate on > one > problem first, like the failure_route topic, and then combining this with > the > reply_route. > > Best regards, > > Henning > > -- > Henning Westerholt > https://skalatan.de/blog/ > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users