Bogdan,<br><br>So the typical requirement I see is that I'll put in a handful of termination gateways for a given carrier, but the carriers usually (sometimes?) ask that if the call fails on one of the gateways (like a 503) to NOT send it to all the other gateways as well. In fact a "next_carrier" function would be ideal. Else, if I'm reading this right,if I use the carriers capabilities as listed it'll try every single one of the carrier's gateways, right? Or is the weight based selection going to pick just one gateways of the carriers each time? <br>
<br>I feel like a lot of my confusion stems from this:<br><ul type="disc"><li><p>list of GWs/carriers (string) - a comma separated list
of gateways or carriers (defined by IDs) to be used for this rule; the
carrier IDs are prefixed with “<span class="quote">#</span>” sign. For each ID (GW or
carrier) you may specify a weight. For how this list will be interpreted
(as order) see the rule selection section. Example of list:
“<span class="quote">gw1,gw4,#cr3</span>” </p></li></ul><p>So this "gwX,#crX" notation is new and is specifically what I don't see documented other than in the paragraph listed above. So before we'd indicate a gwlist instead of a gateway by prefixing with a # like #5 is gwlist 5. But now we have gwX, which I can only assume is dr_gateways.gwid=X? and #cr3 which I'd assume is the list of gateways associated with carrier_id 3. but I'm not sure why one has a # and the other doesn't. Maybe I missed a documentation page? :)</p>
<p><br></p><p>Also can the weight based sorting be used on both in the dr_rules table to select a carrier and in the dr_carriers table to select a gateways (ie carrier 1 weight is 75% and carrier 2 is 25%.. BUT then carrier 1's gateway 5 is weight 75% and carrier 1's gateway 7 is weight 25%)</p>
<p>Sorry for all the questions. I'm looking forward to the new functionality, hope I'm not jumping the gun here. :)</p><p>-Brett</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bogdan@opensips.org">bogdan@opensips.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">When doing weight-based selection, all the entries of a carrier will
be used (of course, based on weight). To be honest I haven;t
foreseen this case - IMO, I supposed that if one GW of the carrier
is down, you will always want to try the rest of the GWs from the
same carrier, rather than falling to another carrier.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Or does it already do that? If I don't specify weights, does it try them in serial order?
</pre>
</blockquote>
yes, but this is not triggered by the lack of weights, but from the
carrier definition (see the wright flag in the carrier;s flag) or
the do_routing() "W" flag.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Is this documented somewhere that I'm missing? The regular module docs dont' seem to show it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Well, you need to read the entire doc in order to get the big
picture. But if something is found to be missing, I will take care
of it :)</div></blockquote></div><br>