<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Hi Bogdan,<br></div>Thanks for info! <br></div>In fact, the problem did not even exist ! The real problem was caused by SIPP "pause" command: it didnt work (at all). <br>So the SIPP uac scenario (invite, ack, pause 20secodns,bye) worked withoud "pause 20seconds" -> the calls were so fast that TH & LB monitoring with fifo lb_list was not possible (lb_load was always 0). That was the cause that i thought: it doesnt funtcionate at all! <br></div>Since we replaced SIPP uac client with real client, the problem can not be reproduced.<br></div><div>I have another problem now there:<br></div><div> In incoming INVITE, in Contact header is "src" parameter (the part of SIPREC). This parameter will be omitted by OpenSips ( with TH & LB ) in forwareded INVITE ! (xml from multipart will be forwarded)<br></div><div>Can you help here ? Is it possible to recreate it - by some options / manipulations in routing script ?<br></div>best regards<br></div>Mirko<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bogdan@opensips.org" target="_blank">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">
<tt>Hi Mirko,<br>
<br>
I suspect you messed up the routing for sequential requests when
you added the TH. And if the sequential requests are not properly
handled anymore from dialog perspective, the dialog module will
not be able to count the ongoing calls, so the balancing process
will get broken.<br>
<br>
Have you added/replaced the "loose_route()" with
"topology_hiding_match()" in your script ?<br>
<br>
If you do "dlg_list" do you see the calls in state 4 (established)
?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
</tt>
<pre class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-signature" cols="72">Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
<a class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.opensips-solutions.com" target="_blank">http://www.opensips-solutions.<wbr>com</a>
OpenSIPS Summit 2018
<a class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2018Amsterdam" target="_blank">http://www.opensips.org/<wbr>events/Summit-2018Amsterdam</a>
</pre><div><div class="h5">
<div class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-cite-prefix">On 03/06/2018 04:42 PM, Mirko Csiky
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi community,<br>
</div>
since we activated the topology hiding module in our
load_balance test scenario (sipp uac -> opensips &
load_balance -> 5x - sipp uas), load balance
functionality always choose the same destination (from 5
possible). I can not see the link between topology_hiding
& load_balance_destination_<wbr>choice, why is it so ? <br>
</div>
Does anyone have experience with
topology_hiding&load_balance / workaround-idea ? <br>
</div>
best regards<br>
</div>
Mirko<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-4082243340866272859mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Users mailing list
<a class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org" target="_blank">Users@lists.opensips.org</a>
<a class="m_-4082243340866272859moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>