Hi Ronald, I wouldn't go so far - even if you get 2 records for the transaction based accounting, the values will be mixed.
Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 07/10/2013 03:08 PM, Ronald Cepres wrote: > Bogdan, > > I am currently using CDR based. Does it mean that if I use transaction > based, we will have more accurate resulting CDRs? > > Thanks. > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Ronald, > > I never experienced such race (with multiple 200 oks on different > branches)....But depending on what kind of accounting you do: > - transaction based = you will get 2 START records and 2 STOP > records, but with different TO tags.... > - cdr based = you will get the values of the last 200 OK (which > will overwrite the values of the first one).. > > I guess the ACC module was never designed to deal with such scenarios. > > Regards, > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu > OpenSIPS Founder and Developer > http://www.opensips-solutions.com > > > On 07/06/2013 02:25 AM, Ronald Cepres wrote: >> Bogdan, >> >> Understood, and thanks for the info. >> >> However, I have some concerns with regards to the resulting CDR >> using the acc and drouting modules. I think if both GWs sent 200 >> OK at the same time, it would result in a CDR with the values of >> AVPs specified by carrier_id_avp and gw_id_avp drouting >> parameters set only to GW2. Also, if GW1 is the last GW in the >> gwlist and this type of race condition happens, the value of the >> AVPs will be set to blank. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hello Ronald, >> >> If the first GW sent any reply before the timeout, than >> OpenSIPS will cancel it before hitting the failure route. If >> no reply at all sent by GW1, OpenSIPS will hit the failure >> route on timeout without canceling. If after this point (call >> send to GW2) first GW sends a reply : >> 1) if a provisional reply (<200), it will be canceled on >> the spot >> 2) if a 200 ok reply -> it will be accepted and fwd to >> calling device >> a) if the GW2 did not send a 200 OK, it will be canceled >> b) if GW2 also sent a 200 OK in the same time, both >> 200 OK will be sent to calling device and it that device will >> decide what call to keep >> >> Regards, >> >> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer >> http://www.opensips-solutions.com >> >> >> On 07/04/2013 07:41 PM, Ronald Cepres wrote: >>> >>> Bogdan, >>> >>> Thanks for the informative reply. >>> >>> What I really want to solve is a problem I encounter when >>> the first GW doesnt respond after a defined timeout then >>> Opensips does failover to next GW. A few seconds after the >>> call is routed to second GW, the first GW responds with 200 >>> OK, which may cause problems. It seems that the first GW has >>> a slow response time. >>> >>> The solution I am thinking of to prevent this is to send a >>> cancel to the first GW before doing failover to next >>> gateway. Does this make sense or is there a better solution? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -Ronald >>> >>> On Jul 4, 2013 11:58 PM, "Bogdan-Andrei Iancu" >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ronald, >>> >>> When you hit the failure route, there is no ongoing >>> branch left (doesn't matter how many you previously >>> created) - so you should not worry about this. >>> >>> By SIP definition, a transaction fails (and OpenSIPS >>> gets into failure route) only when all branches failed. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer >>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com >>> >>> >>> On 07/03/2013 10:43 PM, Ronald Cepres wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Is there a way I can cancel a pending branch before >>>> doing a fail-over to next gateway (due to timeout from >>>> previous gateway)? This way I can make sure that the >>>> call to the previous gateway will not go through >>>> anymore after fail-over to the next gateway, thus >>>> preventing us "double-charged" situations if the >>>> previous gateway and the new gateway both answered the >>>> call. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ronald >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Ronald Cepres >> > > > > -- > > Ronald Cepres > Network Operations Center > Net Voip Communications, Inc. > > > This message contains confidential information and is intended only > for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you > should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission > cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could > be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, > or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for > any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise > as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please > request a hard-copy version. Net Voip Communications, Inc., 2721 > Forsyth Rd #256, Winter park, FL 32792. www.netvoipcommunications.com > <http://www.netvoipcommunications.com/> >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
