Bogdan, Thanks for the advice. Although it might be a long shot, I hope acc module can handle something like this in the future. I guess I'll just try to adjust/increase the fr_inv_timer_avp value for now to minimize this scenario.
Cheers! On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > 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 Developerhttp://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]>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 Developerhttp://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] >> > 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 Developerhttp://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]> >>> 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 Developerhttp://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 >>>> [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > -- Regards, Ronald Cepres
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
