Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Ovidiu Sas
I would say: http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm.html#t_branch_timeout would be more appropriate for detection local timeouts. If a reply is generated locally (from the script) I don't think that will end up in the failure route (I have not tested this scenario). And even if it en

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Klaus Darilion
maybe you can use t_any_timeout? I do not know if it handles internal and external timeout identical http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm#t_any_timeout On 31.03.2011 16:58, Andreas Granig wrote: Hi, On 03/31/2011 03:38 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote: Ricardo Martinez writes: This

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Juha Heinanen
Andreas Granig writes: > Until 1.5.x, there has been a t_local_replied() in tm for checking > whether the reply (e.g. the 408) has been generated locally. What > happened to that one? How would you do this in 3.x reliably without > depending on an 1xx response from the outside? beats me. i don't

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Andreas Granig
Hi, On 03/31/2011 03:38 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Ricardo Martinez writes: >> This 408 response code is generated in the failure_route only? what if >> a gateway really answers a call with 408 because there was no answer from >> the client... this response is handled by the on_reply route , i

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Juha Heinanen
Ricardo Martinez writes: > So please, can you clarify me one more thing?. > This 408 response code is generated in the failure_route only? what if > a gateway really answers a call with 408 because there was no answer from > the client... this response is handled by the on_reply route , isn't?

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Ricardo Martinez
Users] LCR defunct_gw use Ricardo Martinez writes: > Maybe I did not read the README file so well, but I can't find where it says > that the defunct_gw() function defunct a gateway of previous next_gw() > call. well, it is sort of indirectly specified if you read what is said about

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Juha Heinanen
Ricardo Martinez writes: > Maybe I did not read the README file so well, but I can't find where it says > that the defunct_gw() function defunct a gateway of previous next_gw() > call. well, it is sort of indirectly specified if you read what is said about defunct_gw_avp and lcr_id_avp, but i'll

Re: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-31 Thread Ricardo Martinez
enSER) and SIP Express Router (SER) - Users Mailing List Asunto: [SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use Ricardo Martinez writes: > Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()” > is > used to mark a gw down?. as the README tells, the function defuncts the gateway of prev

[SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-30 Thread Juha Heinanen
Ricardo Martinez writes: > Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()” is > used to mark a gw down?. as the README tells, the function defuncts the gateway of previous next_gw() call. > I understand that the gateway is marked down for period of time with the > comma

[SR-Users] LCR defunct_gw use

2011-03-30 Thread Ricardo Martinez
Hello. Can someone please explain to me hoy can i use the command “defunct_gw()” is used to mark a gw down?. I understand that the gateway is marked down for period of time with the command, but how can I check if a gateway is down?. Can someone show me this with an example in the configuration?