On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Uriel Rozenbaum
<uriel.rozenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JR,
>
> Maybe for subsequent routes you'd like to use $oU (original URI Username)
> that is the original number you intend to route.
>
> Rgds,
> Uriel
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, JR Richardson <jmr.richard...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Henning Westerholt
>> <henning.westerh...@1und1.de> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 27 May 2010, JR Richardson wrote:
>> >> > i assume according your description that the GW in question don't
>> >> > send a
>> >> > provisional response. Then the tm module should generate a internal
>> >> > 408
>> >> > after fr_timer interval which you could then catch in a
>> >> > failure_route. Do
>> >> > you armed the appropriate failure_route in your cfg?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the gateway is totally off-line so no response comes back. I do
>> >> have failure_route in the config. This is related to another active
>> >> post from me "Carrierroute failover domain not working" so I'm sure
>> >> this is a redundant post, but your input is appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> The pastebin has my kamailio.cfg, the kamailio debug trace and the
>> >> error received by sipp and the ngrep capture.
>> >>
>> >> http://pastebin.com/VQziKYjE
>> >
>> > Hi JR,
>> >
>> > from the logs:
>> >
>> > INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: rewrite_uri_recursor doesn't complete,
>> > uri 65,
>> > carrier 1, domain 2
>> >
>> > this means that there was an error during the invocation of the cr_route
>> > in
>> > the failure_route[2]. Can you check if you've a rule with domain 2 in
>> > your
>> > carrierroute table?
>> >
>> > And you probably also want to use revert_uri() and append_branch(); in
>> > the
>> > failure_route before respectivly after the new cr_route, otherwise
>> > you'll
>> > probably run in to problems as well. I just noticed that there is an
>> > error in
>> > the first example in the cr docs, i'll fix it now. The second example
>> > uses
>> > this two commands.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Henning
>> >
>> Ok, so I think we are on to something, in the first transaction the
>> uri was 3465@ which matched the database entry 34 in carrier 1 domain
>> 1, but I also had strip_prefix-2 in there as well, so when the call
>> goes to the failure route the uri changes to 65@, which did not have a
>> match in carrier 1 domain 2.
>>
>> So to test, I took the prefix matching and the strip_prefix out and
>> simplified the database entry to this:
>>
>> carrierroute table:
>> carrier 1, domain 1, host A
>> carrier 1, domain 1, host B
>> carrier 1, domain 2, host C
>> carrier 1, domain 2, host D
>>
>> carrierfailureroute table:
>> carrier 1, domain 1, host A, next domain 2
>> carrier 1, domain 1, host B, next domain 2
>> carrier 1, domain 2, host C, next domain 1
>> carrier 1, domain 2, host D, next domain 1
>>
>> So now I see a call come in to kamailio and if host A & B are
>> off-line, I see in the debug the failure_route try to send the call to
>> host C & D, but I still have an error because I don't have a proper
>> branch route setup, and this is confusing, I don't understand what
>> that means? Here is the error:
>>
>> The uri is 3477@, call come in and hits the route[2], then goes to
>> failure_route.
>>
>> May 27 11:04:04 [25716] INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 3477 was
>> rewritten to sip:3...@10.10.14.104, carrier 1, domain 2
>> May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for
>> forwarding
>> May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed
>> May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for
>> forwarding
>> May 27 11:04:04 [25716] ERROR:tm:w_t_relay: t_forward_nonack failed
>>
>> Here is the config snip:
>>
>> route[2] {
>> if(!cr_route("1", "1", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){
>> sl_send_reply("403", "Not allowed");
>> } else {
>> t_on_failure("2");
>> t_relay();
>> }
>> }
>>
>> failure_route[2] {
>> revert_uri();
>> if (t_check_status("404|408|5[0-9][0-9]")) {
>> if(!cr_route("1", "2", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){
>> t_reply("403", "Not allowed");
>> } else {
>> t_relay();
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> So I guess I'm stuck on the error "ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no
>> branch for forwarding". I'm not sure how to setup a branch route from
>> the failure route.
I read about append_branch() and added it to my failure route. Well,
that allowed the route to branch and forward the calls to the
failureroute gateways listed in the database. But now I have an issue
with re-transmits in the failure route, it's like the failure route is
sending 2 invited to the next_domain gateways. I really don't
understand what I'm doing with the failure route and append_branch,
here is a snip of my failure_route:
route[2] {
if(!cr_route("1", "1", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){
sl_send_reply("403", "Not allowed");
} else {
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
}
}
failure_route[2] {
revert_uri();
if (t_check_status("404|408|5[0-9][0-9]")) {
if(!cr_route("1", "2", "$rU", "$rU", "call_id")){
t_reply("403", "Not allowed");
} else {
append_branch();
t_relay();
}
}
}
Any guidance please?
Thanks.
JR
--
JR Richardson
Engineering for the Masses
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
