[OpenSIPS-Users] dispatcher "fail-over" doesn't seem happy

[Brett Nemeroff]

Where is your failure route? :)
-Brett


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Jock McKechnie
<jock.mckechnie at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> I'm attempting to set up a fail-over only scenario using dispatcher and am
> encountering some problems. I'm using dispatcher since we're already
> utilising it for load balancing, so it makes sense to reuse the tool, and
> according to the OpenSIPS 1.6 dispatcher module documentation it supports
> fail-over.
>
> If the destination server is running, everything works as expected - algo 8
> (which OpenSIPS logs as not found and defaulting to the first entry) pushes
> the call to the first server at all times. However if I block the route to
> the destination server like so:
> /sbin/route add -host 192.168.0.99 reject
> Then instead of failing over I get a SIP 477 (Send failed) error.
>
> The chunk of routing looks like so:
>
> xlog("L_WARN", "[$Tf] Found failover, working on set: 1101\n");
> if (!ds_select_domain("1101", "8")) {
>     t_reply("503", "Unable to locate failover set requested");
>     return;
>     };
>
> route(1);
> };
>
> route[1] {
> t_on_failure("2");
>
> xlog("L_WARN", "Attempting to relay call to $ru\n");
>
> if (!t_relay()) {
>     xlog("L_WARN", "[$Tf] t_relay fail\n");
>     return;
>     }
> return;
> }
>
>
>
> The log contains:
> [Thu Apr  1 11:14:35 2010] Found failover, working on set: 1101
> WARNING:dispatcher:ds_select_dst: algo 8 not implemented - using first
> entry...
> Attempting to relay call to sip:+12125551212 at 192.168.0.99:5060
> ERROR:core:udp_send: sendto(sock,0xb3b9bd28,1039,0,0xb3ba2cf4,16): Network
> is unreachable(101)
> ERROR:tm:msg_send: udp_send failed
> ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
> [Thu Apr  1 11:14:35 2010] Found failover, working on set: 1101
> WARNING:dispatcher:ds_select_dst: algo 8 not implemented - using first
> entry...
> Attempting to relay call to sip:+12125551212 at 192.168.0.99:5060
>
> This suggests to me that instead of failing over it's simply retrying the
> first entry, which it shouldn't be, and after finding it out for a second
> time (and thus exhausting the two-entry set), gives up.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>  - JP
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>