VoIP Mailing List Archives

[pjintheusa at gmail.com]

Hi there,

I am trying to implement a scenario where I can terminate calls to
multiple destinations AND have termination carrier fail over.
Currently I can see how to do one or the other. But not both.

Multiple destinations is easy:

<action application="bridge"
data="sofia/SIP_PROVIDER_1/6095551234,sofia/SIP_PROVIDER_1/7325551234"/>

Failover appears to use the same mechanism:

<action application="bridge"
data="sofia/gateway/primary/blah|sofia/gateway/secondary/blah"/>

I can not get my head around how use these together, such that:


- 6095551234 is dialed through SIP_PROVIDER_1
- if NO_ROUTE_DESTINATION then dial 6095551234 through SIP_PROVIDER_2
- Called party does not answer
7325551234 is dialed through SIP_PROVIDER_1
- if NO_ROUTE_DESTINATION then dial 7325551234 through SIP_PROVIDER_2
- Called party answers


This must be a fairly common requirement so any ideas on what I might
be missing would be very welcome.

Thanks


Phillip Jones

_______________________________________________
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org

[rupa at rupa.com]

While any use of loopback can be considered abuse, that is how I solve this issue.  I use loopback for each dialed # and then in the dialplan use mod_lcr to build a dialstring that does failover in order of cost.

So:

 <action application="bridge"
data="sofia/SIP_PROVIDER_1/6095551234,sofia/SIP_PROVIDER_1/7325551234"/>
becomes

 <action application="bridge"
data="loopback/6095551234,loopback/7325551234"/>

In the dialplan you then match on those (just regular 10digit dialing) and do your normal failover dialstring.  Again, I do this with mod_lcr but that isn't necessary.

<action application="bridge" data="sofia/gw1/$1|sofia/gw2/$2..."/>



On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Phillip Jones <pjintheusa@gmail.com (pjintheusa@gmail.com)> wrote:

[rupa at rupa.com]

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com (rupa@rupa.com)> wrote:

[pjintheusa at gmail.com]

Thanks very much for that - very help.

Why would loopback be considered "abuse"? What would be the downsides
of doing this?

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Rupa Schomaker<rupa@rupa.com> wrote:

[mike at jerris.com]

loopback ends up using extra threads which we are only able to drop
later in certain situations so it will decrease your total amount of
calls you can do if your not careful with them.

Mike

On Aug 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:

[pjintheusa at gmail.com]

Mike/Rupa ,

Thanks for your help on this. So I am correct that summarizing that
FreeSWITCH does not really support fail over and multiple call
destinations because the same mechanism is used to achieve both? And
that loopback as a solution is possible but not recommended?

Is there any other solution to this? Perhaps a second FS box in the mix?

Phil


On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Michael Jerris<mike@jerris.com> wrote:

[mike at jerris.com]

I think that summary is totally wrong. Loopback should be used
here, and this should work to do what you want, just be aware of what
that means.

Mike


On Aug 8, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:

[pjintheusa at gmail.com]

Ok - that's great. I will build this out - thanks both for your help
on this. Much appreciated.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Michael Jerris<mike@jerris.com> wrote: