Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Thanks for the info! On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Joel Serrano writes: > > > Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be > implemented? > > is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually > > apply and

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Joel Serrano writes: > Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be implemented? > is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually > apply and build? I think backports are usually done on per need basis. So if you need this patch in some version earlier

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be implemented? is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually apply and build? Cheers, Joel. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel, > > After your patch, branch flags

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel, After your patch, branch flags are now preserved to the second SRV destination. Thanks, -- Juha ___ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Sounded rather simple, so I did a quick search in the code and just > pushed a patch for it -- very small, but hopefully it fixes this. If all > tests are fine for you, then you can backport as needed to stable branches. Thanks, will test and backport. -- Juha

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 11:00, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> OK, so it is creating a new branch structure. That could explain why the >> branch flags from previous INVITE are not there. If it is only the >> branch flags missing (and the headers changes are already propagated),

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > OK, so it is creating a new branch structure. That could explain why the > branch flags from previous INVITE are not there. If it is only the > branch flags missing (and the headers changes are already propagated), I > expect to be an easy patch. I will look

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 10:44, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> Is the branch parameter in the top Via of the second INVITE sent out >> different than for the first INVITE (last digit incremented by 1 or >> so)? > Thanks for your reply. Yes it is: > > In the first INVITE: > >

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Is the branch parameter in the top Via of the second INVITE sent out > different than for the first INVITE (last digit incremented by 1 or > so)? Thanks for your reply. Yes it is: In the first INVITE: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 10:23, Juha Heinanen wrote: > I did more some more tests. > > The branch route was properly executed before INVITE to the first SRV > destination was sent. The branch route set some headers, branch flags, > etc. After the first SRV destination failed, INVITE was sent to the >

[SR-Users] dns failover and branches

I did more some more tests. The branch route was properly executed before INVITE to the first SRV destination was sent. The branch route set some headers, branch flags, etc. After the first SRV destination failed, INVITE was sent to the second SRV destination and the branch route was not

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 09:09, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Juha Heinanen writes: > >> If Request-URI hostpart is a domain name with more than one SRV record, >> it appears that each SRV destination creates its own Kamailio branch. >> If branch route is set before t_relay(), it is executed only on the >> first SRV

[SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Juha Heinanen writes: > If Request-URI hostpart is a domain name with more than one SRV record, > it appears that each SRV destination creates its own Kamailio branch. > If branch route is set before t_relay(), it is executed only on the > first SRV destination. If the first SRV destination

[SR-Users] dns failover and branches

If Request-URI hostpart is a domain name with more than one SRV record, it appears that each SRV destination creates its own Kamailio branch. If branch route is set before t_relay(), it is executed only on the first SRV destination. If the first SRV destination fails, Kamailio tries automatically