Routing is done differently when policy is neighbor vs. sql?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In a followup to my "Routing calls to particular ISDN gateway" thread from 
a few days ago, I'm now encountering the following:

If my RoutingPolicy is:
[RoutingPolicy]
default=explicit,internal,neighbor,sql,enum,srv,dns

And I have:
[RasSrv::RewriteE164]
12125551212=310339
13129876543=223742

and
[RasSrv::Neighbors]
vcs=GnuGK

[Neighbor::vcs]
GatekeeperIdentifier=vcs
Host=10.244.22.20
SendPrefixes=*
AcceptPrefixes=*
ForwardLRQ=always

And the endpoint that I'm trying to call to is registered to a local 
gatekeeper which is neighbored to Tandberg VCS then...

If I dial 12125551212 from an endpoint in Chicago, then the call gets 
connected to the endpoint at 310339, even though I dialed 12125551212. 
That's good, and the desired behavior.

But if I change the RoutingPolicy to
[RoutingPolicy]
default=explicit,internal,sql,neighbor,enum,srv,dns

Then when I place the call, I can see that the number is re-written by the 
GnuGk:

2009/10/09 14:14:37.770 4       ProxyChannel.cxx(1856)  Q931s   GWRewrite 
source for 10.244.22.21:39456: call record
2009/10/09 14:14:37.770 2            Toolkit.cxx(695) 
RewritePString: 12125551212 to 310339
2009/10/09 14:14:37.771 5             ipauth.cxx(266)   FileIPAuth      IP 
10.244.22.21 accepted for Called 310339

and then gets passed off by the SQL policy to the correct gatekeeper, 
(10.244.2.5) but that gatekeeper is trying to route the call out to the 
ISDN instead of seeing that the 310648 is registered locally:

1199275	15:14:09.046 	CONNECTION	Trace	lookup: new call type: "IP"
1199276	15:14:09.047 	CONNECTION	Info	Accepting incoming IP to ISDN call
1199277	15:14:09.048 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_name ""
1199278	15:14:09.048 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_e164 "315136"
1199279	15:14:09.048 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_remote_ip (10.23.10.222)
1199280	15:14:09.048 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: set_call_type: Audio and 
Video
1199281	15:14:09.048 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_maximum_media_bandwidth; 512000 512000 512000 512000
1199282	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Info	3801I3803b : update_flow_control
1199283	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	total: 0 kbps
1199284	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	audio: Null , 0 kbps
1199285	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	video: Null , 0 kbps
1199286	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	ext_v: Null , 0 kbps
1199287	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: Incoming call to E164: 
"310339"
1199288	15:14:09.049 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_incoming_call_info_complete
1199289	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Detailed	check_condition: success
1199290	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Detailed	condition matched
1199291	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Trace	call "none"
1199292	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Trace	source "310339", action: connect call 
if possible, rule: 2
1199293	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Detailed	check_condition: success
1199294	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Detailed	condition matched
1199295	15:14:09.050 	DIAL_PLAN	Trace	call "310339"
1199296	15:14:09.050 	CONNECTION	Trace	dial plan states max 768 kbps call
1199297	15:14:09.050 	CONNECTION	Trace	dial plan states IP encryption is 
optional
1199298	15:14:09.061 	CONNECTION	Trace	generating CDR for new connection 3801


NOTE HERE THAT IT'S TRYING TO PLACE AN H.320 CALL INSTEAD OF H.323?


1199299	15:14:09.061 	CONNECTION	Info	3801i3802a: placing partner call as 
H.320 to "310339" (BONDING)
1199300	15:14:09.245 	CONNECTION	Detailed	destroy context: 0x8F81; try 
0x83A30000
1199301	15:14:09.245 	CONNECTION	Detailed	destroy context: 0x8F81; try 0x1CF80
1199302	15:14:09.245 	CONNECTION	Detailed	destroy context: 0x8F81; try 
0x811D0001
1199303	15:14:09.245 	CONNECTION	Detailed	destroy context: 0x8F81; try 0x8F81
1199304	15:14:09.245 	CONNECTION	Trace	destroy connection message sent for 
connection 3801I3803b
1199305	15:14:09.247 	CONNECTION	Trace	destroy connection message received 
for connection 3801I3803b
1199306	15:14:09.247 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801I3803b: 
conference_participant_destroy (busy)
1199307	15:14:09.247 	CONNECTION	Trace	generating CDR for terminating 
connection 3801
1199308	15:14:09.247 	CONNECTION	Info	3801i3802a: 
cm_ensure_participant_disconnecting... 9
1199309	15:14:09.247 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: successfully sent 
disconnect indication
1199310	15:14:09.248 	CONNECTION	Trace	Trying to destroy call pair 3801
1199311	15:14:09.248 	CONNECTION	Trace	cannot destroy; call 3801i3802a is 
in state "initial"
1199312	15:14:09.250 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_status_message "Participant busy"
1199313	15:14:09.250 	CONNECTION	Trace	3801i3802a: 
conference_participant_set_disconnect_info_message "9"

Shouldn't the GnuGk have generated a LRQ which was sent to the Codian 
Gatekeeper?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________________

Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=openh323gk-users
Unsubscribe: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users
Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/

[Index of Archives]     [SIP]     [Open H.323]     [Gnu Gatekeeper]     [Asterisk PBX]     [ISDN Cause Codes]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux