[OpenSIPS-Users] next_gw still does append_branch in failure_route?

[Jeff Pyle]

Hi Bogdan,

Over the weekend I did some reading, lots of trial and error, and reworked
the config to use drouting...  Probably a better solution anyway.  It
appears from the online docs that drouting is poised to replace LCR
altogether.  Is the case, or am I reading too much into this?

Thanks,
Jeff





On 3/9/09 9:55 AM, "Bogdan-Andrei Iancu" <bogdan at voice-system.ro> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
> That is correct - I made a fix of LCR next_gw() function. It should work
> now.
> 
> Regarding DR questions: do_routing() accepts as param the routing group
> (as load_gw_from_grp()). For GW flags, there are the GW attributes (see
> http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/devel/drouting.html#id272134)
> 
> Regards,
> Bogdan
> 
> Jeff Pyle wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I¹m using the LCR module in Opensips 1.5. (I realize I should probably
>> be using drouting if I¹m starting from scratch, but I need the gateway
>> group and flags functionality that only appear to be in the LCR
>> module. More on that at the end.)
>> 
>> Bogdan emailed the list about not needing append_branch any longer in
>> a failure_route 
>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@lists.opensips.org/msg00663.html).
>> All the documentation seems to indicate that next_gw still does the
>> append_branch automatically.
>> 
>> The behavior I¹m seeing, along with Bogdan¹s email from January, seem
>> to indicate it¹s not necessary anymore. In my configuration, next_gw
>> is called from the request_route. The request is sent out with
>> t_relay. The request fails with a 503, and is caught in the armed
>> failure_route. next_gw is called again, then t_relay. There appear to
>> be two branches present, the old one to the first (failed) gateway and
>> the new one to the second newly loaded gateway. t_relay does a
>> parallel fork to both of them. The first gateway fails again 503, and
>> in my test setup, so does the second, also with a 503. One of these
>> 503s is properly processed by the armed failure_route, the other one
>> is converted to a 500 and relayed to the UAC.
>> 
>>> From the perspective of the UAC: It sends an INVITE, gets a 100
>> Trying, then a 500 (relayed) and a 503 (scripted) at the same time.
>> The UAC ACKs both of them and the transaction is over.
>> 
>> Is all of this due to the lcr module still appending a branch in the
>> failure route when it shouldn¹t be? Or, does it appear something else
>> is going on? Normally I¹d post config snippits but in it¹s got so much
>> more unrelated and properly-functioning stuff I didn¹t want to confuse
>> the issue with the truth. :)
>> 
>> Or, as an aside, can drouting duplicate the load_gw_from_grp() and
>> gateway flags functionality of lcr?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>   
>