To anyone reading this in the future: Point 2 in my original post is
completely misleading:
> If there are two destinations in the destination group for first_provider,
> and the first one fails, then the second destination will be tried out in
> tm:branch-failure:DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER. Now the Via branch
> parameter for this INVITE is different than the original (.1 instead of
> .0), which one can verify by capturing the traffic on-net. However, in the
> logs, the respective branch route is only run once, and there's no
> reference to the ".1" Via, even with cfg script debugging enabled. I'm
> assuming this means that kamailio's definition of "branch" in the context
> of the configuration file is different to the notion of branch as a
> transaction identifier in SIP signalling in general? In simpler language,
> distinct branch identifiers in Via headers between two requests does not
> mean that these two requests were treated as separate branches in kamailio
> config: true or false?
>
There is indeed lines in the logs indicating that a new branch was created
as a result of actions taken in
tm:branch-failure:DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER. The reason I missed it is
that I grepped the logs for Call-Id, which filtered those lines out.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 16:18, George Diamantopoulos <georged...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> Thanks for the input. That clears it up.
>
> @Ben Merrills: Glad to hear my rants are useful to other people as well
> :-). Branches are indeed among the more complicated concepts in kamailio
> scripting. I've always found resources that explain how things work much
> more useful than "how-to/examples" approaches to documentation when it
> comes to producing real-world configurations (Daniel and Ramona's kamailio
> ebook is a good starting point if you're struggling with grasping the
> larger picture). Maybe in part because I can't settle with something just
> working the way a set of requirements expect it to unless I also understand
> the why.
>
> BR,
> George
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 10:35, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> a new branch is created every time a request is sent out to a new
>> destination or resent to same destination after additional processing in a
>> failure route. append_branch() should not be needed, unless you want to
>> create more branches for parallel forking. Updating $ru or $du and doing
>> t_relay() in failure route should be all what is needed to send to a new
>> branch.
>>
>> To have branch route execution, be sure you set it before t_relay(), also
>> in failure route, even if you set it previously in request_route for first
>> branch -- in other words, t_on_branch() must be used for each step of
>> serial forking.
>>
>> The branch route block is executed inside t_relay(), so it is in the same
>> process that sends out the request, but in case of failure routing, further
>> branches are not created in the same process as the first branch. The best
>> is to use $xavp/$avp if you are not sure where and when those branch
>> processing happen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>> On 21.01.20 23:22, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Some keyboard shortcut resulted in gmail previously sending the message
>> out before I had finished writing it, sorry about that. This is the
>> complete message.
>>
>> I'm trying to accomplish the following scenario, and some questions have
>> arisen during testing: I'd like to be able to fork serially to a number of
>> downstream destinations in case of failure, but also try several hosts
>> which are available per destination network (via dispatcher module) before
>> failing over to the next one (e.g. try two gateways for provider A and if
>> both fail, then try two more gateways for provider B etc). I also need to
>> perform some network-specific handling per destination group (=provider),
>> which I thought I'd perform in respective branch routes. To that end, I'm
>> using something similar to the config pasted toward the end of the message.
>>
>> Here's some points that have troubled me, if anyone can provide some
>> insight:
>>
>> 1. After exhausting dispatcher group entries for first_provider, the
>> request is indeed forwarded to last_provider with this configuration. I've
>> noticed a new branch is created. I'm assuming this happens because there's
>> some RURI manipulation taking place in branch_route? I recall reading
>> somewhere that even doing $ru = $ru will result in a new branch being
>> created. Is my assumption correct here, or is the new branch created for
>> some other reason? I mean if I did t_on_branch in a failure route
>> following
>> a t_relay which failed, but without manipulating the RURI in the new
>> branch_route, would that still create an implicit new branch or would one
>> have to use append_branch() or similar in this case?
>> - I'm asking because several implicit or explicit branch creation
>> mechanisms are documented in various places (e.g. usrloc, lcr,
>> alias_db,
>> corex) but it's there's no comprehensive list for reference.
>> 2. If there are two destinations in the destination group for
>> first_provider, and the first one fails, then the second destination will
>> be tried out in tm:branch-failure:DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER. Now the
>> Via
>> branch parameter for this INVITE is different than the original (.1
>> instead
>> of .0), which one can verify by capturing the traffic on-net. However, in
>> the logs, the respective branch route is only run once, and there's no
>> reference to the ".1" Via, even with cfg script debugging enabled. I'm
>> assuming this means that kamailio's definition of "branch" in the context
>> of the configuration file is different to the notion of branch as a
>> transaction identifier in SIP signalling in general? In simpler language,
>> distinct branch identifiers in Via headers between two requests does not
>> mean that these two requests were treated as separate branches in kamailio
>> config: true or false?
>> 3. This is causing the most problems for me right now: the $vn PVs
>> seem to be available for the first (main?) branch, but not for subsequent
>> branches which are generated if the first branch fails. I was under the
>> impression that branch_routes are handled by the same process as the
>> request_route for a message, and as a consequence I was expecting private
>> variables to be available there. This doesn't seem to be the case with the
>> example configuration below. $vn(some_var) in
>> branch_route[LAST_PROV_BRANCH] evaluates to NULL. Any insight as to why
>> this happens? And if I need these vars to be available in serial forking,
>> is the recommended solution to use shared variables or is my approach here
>> problematic in other ways?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> George
>>
>> request_route {
>> ...
>> $vn(some_var) = "some_value";
>> $vn(some_other_var) = "some_other_value";
>> ...
>> $avp(provider_order) = "last_provider";
>> $avp(provider_order) = "first_provider";
>> ...
>> t_set_fr(120000, 2000);
>> route(PROVIDER_SELECTION);
>> }
>>
>> route[PROVIDER_SELECTION] {
>> if ( is_avp_set("$avp(provider_order)") ) {
>> t_on_failure("PROVIDER_SERIAL");
>> if ( $avp(provider_order) == "first_provider" ) {
>> $avp(provider_order) = $null;
>> route(DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV);
>> } else if ( $avp(provider_order) == "last_provider" ) {
>> $avp(provider_order) = $null;
>> route(DISPATCH_LAST_PROV);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> route[DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV] {
>> if ( !ds_select_dst("1", "4") ) {
>> if ( is_avp_set("$avp(provider_order)") ) {
>> route(PROVIDER_SELECTION);
>> } else {
>> t_send_reply("503", "Downstream carrier unavailable");
>> }
>> }
>>
>> t_on_branch_failure("DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER");
>> t_on_branch("FIRST_PROV_BRANCH");
>>
>> route(RELAY);
>> exit;
>> }
>>
>> route[DISPATCH_LAST_PROV] {
>> //Similar to First Prov
>> }
>>
>> event_route[tm:branch-failure:DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER] {
>> if (t_is_canceled()) exit;
>>
>> # next DST - only for 5xx or local timeout
>> if ( t_check_status("5[[:digit:]]+") || (t_branch_timeout() &&
>> !t_branch_replied()) ) {
>> if ( ds_next_dst() ) {
>> t_on_branch_failure("DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER");
>> route(RELAY);
>> exit;
>> } else {
>> xlog("L_ERR", "--- SCRIPT_DISPATCH_FIRST_PROV_FAILOVER: Failed to route
>> request to first prov.\n");
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> event_route[tm:branch-failure:DISPATCH_LAST_PROV_FAILOVER] {
>> //Similar to First Prov
>> }
>>
>> branch_route[FIRST_PROV_BRANCH] {
>> uac_replace_to("$vn(some_var)");
>> $ru = $vn(some_other_var);
>> }
>>
>> branch_route[LAST_PROV_BRANCH] {
>> uac_replace_to("$vn(some_var)");
>> $ru = $vn(some_other_var);
>> }
>>
>> failure_route[PROVIDER_SERIAL] {
>> if (t_is_canceled()) exit;
>>
>> # next Provider - only for 5xx or local timeout
>> if ( (t_check_status("5[[:digit:]]+") || (t_branch_timeout() &&
>> !t_branch_replied())) && is_avp_set("$avp(provider_order)") ) {
>> xlog("L_NOTICE", "--- SCRIPT_PROVIDER_SERIAL: A failover provider was
>> selected: Forwarding to $avp(provider_order)\n");
>> route(PROVIDER_SELECTION);
>> route(RELAY);
>> exit;
>> } else if ( t_check_status("5[[:digit:]]+") || (t_branch_timeout() &&
>> !t_branch_replied()) ) {
>> xlog("L_NOTICE", "--- SCRIPT_PROVIDER_SERIAL: No more provider options,
>> giving up\n");
>> exit;
>> } else {
>> xlog("L_NOTICE", "--- SCRIPT_PROVIDER_SERIAL: Non-5xx error received,
>> relaying\n");
>> }
>> }
>>
>> route[RELAY] {
>> // Mostly identical to the sample config file
>> }
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing
>> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda --
>> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>> Kamailio Advanced Training - March 9-11, 2020, Berlin - www.asipto.com
>> Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin --
>> www.kamailioworld.com
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
