Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] DRouting Feature Request
Hi, Kneeoh! Please use the issues tracker[1] to add feature requests. [1] https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/issues Best regards, Razvan Crainea OpenSIPS Core Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 07/23/2014 03:29 AM, Kneeoh wrote: It would be great if you could combine the binary Flags for dr_carrier routing: flags : 0x1 - use weight for sorting the list and not definition order; 0x2 - use only the first gateway from the carrier (depending on the sorting); 0x4 - disable the usage of this carrier such that where 1+2 = 3 the gateways are first sorted by weight then returns only the top result for each carrier. This would allow for equitable distribution between carrier gateways. This way gw1=100,gw2=100 would have a roughly equal chance of being picked (if enabled=true). At present it either cycles through all carrier gateways OR when the binary flag is set to 2, it picks the first gateway ONLY, ALL THE TIME. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
[OpenSIPS-Devel] [OpenSIPS/opensips] 4313f9: Revert allow opensipsdbctl to run from a differen...
Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips Commit: 4313f930b2068edaf19a8d6913f09ec42459630d https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/4313f930b2068edaf19a8d6913f09ec42459630d Author: Vlad Paiu vladp...@opensips.org Date: 2014-07-23 (Wed, 23 Jul 2014) Changed paths: M scripts/opensipsctl M scripts/opensipsdbctl M scripts/opensipsdbctl.mysql Log Message: --- Revert allow opensipsdbctl to run from a different folder This reverts commit 684a3e0ba17dc4f8dcd771a8f0ab648e0cc8121e. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] [OpenSIPS-Users] DRouting Feature Request
Hi, Actually you can combine the flags and use 0x03 - ordering by weights and use only first. Just give it a try. Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 23.07.2014 03:29, Kneeoh wrote: It would be great if you could combine the binary Flags for dr_carrier routing: flags : 0x1 - use weight for sorting the list and not definition order; 0x2 - use only the first gateway from the carrier (depending on the sorting); 0x4 - disable the usage of this carrier such that where 1+2 = 3 the gateways are first sorted by weight then returns only the top result for each carrier. This would allow for equitable distribution between carrier gateways. This way gw1=100,gw2=100 would have a roughly equal chance of being picked (if enabled=true). At present it either cycles through all carrier gateways OR when the binary flag is set to 2, it picks the first gateway ONLY, ALL THE TIME. ___ Users mailing list us...@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs
RFCs: 3262, 3311, 3515, 3581, 3891, 3966, 4028 -Original Message- From: devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org] On Behalf Of Saúl Ibarra Corretgé Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:59 AM To: OpenSIPS devel mailling list Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs Too many to keep a list, I guess :-) Which one are you particularly interested in? On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:59, Conners, James james.conn...@aspect.com wrote: What RFCs are supported by OpenSIPS? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects This email (including any attachments) is proprietary to Aspect Software, Inc. and may contain information that is confidential. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You may not further disclose or distribute this email or its attachments. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs
On 23 Jul 2014, at 17:02, Conners, James james.conn...@aspect.com wrote: RFCs: 3262, 3311, 3515, 3581, 3891, 3966, 4028 AFAIK all those are supported. -Original Message- From: devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org] On Behalf Of Saúl Ibarra Corretgé Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:59 AM To: OpenSIPS devel mailling list Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs Too many to keep a list, I guess :-) Which one are you particularly interested in? On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:59, Conners, James james.conn...@aspect.com wrote: What RFCs are supported by OpenSIPS? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects This email (including any attachments) is proprietary to Aspect Software, Inc. and may contain information that is confidential. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You may not further disclose or distribute this email or its attachments. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] [OpenSIPS-Users] DRouting Feature Request
I thought that would work too. But if I put (dr_carriers table) gwlist:gw1=50,gw2=50 flags:3 it Always picks gw1. I want it to alternate between gw1 and gw2 Ultimately I'm trying to do something like: dr_rules: gwlist: #cr1=50,#cr2=50 lets say it picks cr1, then go to the dr_carriers table where it will pick ONE of the carrier gateways based on weight, if that gateway fails or times out use the next carrier cr2, not the next gateway for cr1 On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:07 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@opensips.org wrote: Hi, Actually you can combine the flags and use 0x03 - ordering by weights and use only first. Just give it a try. Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 23.07.2014 03:29, Kneeoh wrote: It would be great if you could combine the binary Flags for dr_carrier routing: flags : 0x1 - use weight for sorting the list and not definition order; 0x2 - use only the first gateway from the carrier (depending on the sorting); 0x4 - disable the usage of this carrier such that where 1+2 = 3 the gateways are first sorted by weight then returns only the top result for each carrier. This would allow for equitable distribution between carrier gateways. This way gw1=100,gw2=100 would have a roughly equal chance of being picked (if enabled=true). At present it either cycles through all carrier gateways OR when the binary flag is set to 2, it picks the first gateway ONLY, ALL THE TIME. ___ Users mailing list us...@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs
Many of the RFC's you mention are implemented within user agents, and not by proxies. 3262, and 3581 are implemented by proxy servers, and opensips implements both. All the others are support for specific methods, headers, or timers and would be implemented by the user agents. You can certainly use all the other RFC's you mentioned with opensips, but again - they would be implemented by user agents. Might I ask what it is you are interested in more generally? -Eric On 07/23/2014 09:02 AM, Conners, James wrote: RFCs: 3262, 3311, 3515, 3581, 3891, 3966, 4028 -Original Message- From: devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.opensips.org] On Behalf Of Saúl Ibarra Corretgé Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:59 AM To: OpenSIPS devel mailling list Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Devel] Supported RFCs Too many to keep a list, I guess :-) Which one are you particularly interested in? On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:59, Conners, James james.conn...@aspect.com wrote: What RFCs are supported by OpenSIPS? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Saúl Ibarra Corretgé AG Projects This email (including any attachments) is proprietary to Aspect Software, Inc. and may contain information that is confidential. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You may not further disclose or distribute this email or its attachments. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
[OpenSIPS-Devel] cachedb change
Hey All,
Using memcached..
So I've noticed that while performing a cache_fetch I can't tell the
difference between a cache failure and a NOT_FOUND. It seems the problem is
actually in cachedb.c because we do this at the end of cachedb_fetch:
return cde-cdb_func.get(con,attr,val)0?-1:1;
So I read this to basically say to return -1 on any failure regardless of
the failure code. This is probably because of the generalized nature of the
cache interface and since each cache backend has it's own return codes. I
get that, but that being said, I can't tell what the failure is and respond
properly.
So I changed that one return line to look more like this:
res = cde-cdb_func.get(con,attr,val);
if (res 0) {
return res;
} else {
return 1;
}
Is this acceptable? Will I run into problems I'm not thinking about? The
only real problem I can see is that a specific error number on one cache
backend might mean something different on another. Obviously the only way
to really fix this would be to have each cache backend to match up it's own
backend's reply codes to a set of generic opensips cache engine reply codes
separately enumerated.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Brett
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
[OpenSIPS-Devel] [OpenSIPS/opensips] 744a5c: event_route: support for handling EVI events in as...
Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips Commit: 744a5c2a763a822528e77801b8eb671c5c9d0e5e https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/744a5c2a763a822528e77801b8eb671c5c9d0e5e Author: Ovidiu Sas o...@voipembedded.com Date: 2014-07-23 (Wed, 23 Jul 2014) Changed paths: M modules/event_route/README M modules/event_route/doc/event_route.xml M modules/event_route/doc/event_route_admin.xml M modules/event_route/event_route.c M modules/event_route/event_route.h A modules/event_route/route_send.c A modules/event_route/route_send.h Log Message: --- event_route: support for handling EVI events in asynch mode - event-route handler: new dedicated process for handling EVI events - synch_mode: new module param to set the default EVI event handling ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
