Saúl, I've had it running for several hours now with much more carriers than normal using media relay. And not a single 400 in the logs. Excellent!
- Jeff On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Jeff Pyle wrote: > On Aug 18, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: > >> >> On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Jeff Pyle wrote: >> >>> Hi Saúl, >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote: >>> >>>> Calling route(x) from the failure route is not the same as getting a new >>>> message into the proxy. When you add headers to the message in the main >>>> route you can't remove them in the failure route, you need to use a branch >>>> route. Same case applies here. In the case you described above you would >>>> call use_media_proxy twice for the same message. >>> >>> I'm not doing anything relay-related in the failure route. If we land in >>> the failure route due to a carrier's 503, we immediately return to the >>> request route via the route[x] call to evaluate the next carrier, deciding >>> at this point whether or not we need any relay functions based on the needs >>> this time, and to some extent what happened last time. >>> >> >> Calling route(x) will not magically bring you to the main route (route(0) >> really). You may execute the same code, but you are in a different state, >> because the request failed. > > In my case it's route(2). Interesting distinction. > > Well, your branch_route / failure_route suggestion seems to work at least as > well as my other approaches on the test box. I'll get it onto the production > boxes during the next maintenance window and see how it does. > > > - Jeff > > >> -- >> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé >> AG Projects > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
