[Spce-user] peering rules, does seem to be using as set

Matthew Ogden matthew at tenacit.net
Sat Feb 15 08:06:08 EST 2014


Hi All,

For reference, on this thread, Daniel reproduced the bug:  in case someone
else encounters the issue, if at any point you exceed 16 chars on a prefix
(which is of course unlikely), but if you did this during testing, that
particular entry will become invalid and unusable even if you change the
prefix back to a normal shorter/usable prefix.

This is true for at less the OSS up to 3.6.16

Kind Regards
Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Grotti [mailto:dgrotti at sipwise.com]
> Sent: 08 February 2014 08:14 PM
> To: Matthew Ogden
> Cc: spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> Subject: Re: [Spce-user] peering rules, does seem to be using as set
>
> Hi Matthew,
> if you have different between gui and mysql, it sounds weird.
> Of course you have to check you lcr_rule in mysql.
> Also you can check if you have some errors or wrong characters in mysql
> (maybe you wrote a wrong "^" symbol, or maybe you wrote a wrong
> REGEXP), that makes your rules unusable.
> If you want, you can share your rules and let us know which call is
> failing, as
> well as which RURI you are trying to match.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 18:57 CET, Matthew Ogden
> <matthew at tenacit.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> >
> >
> > (I had to receive your reply online, I often don't seem to get mails
> > from sipwise forum... I use google apps, and I've checked my
> > junk/spam, but your reply is not there).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, yes, that's exactly how I expected them to work based on the
> > user manual. So I have an entry that is the longer part, and it does
> > not work. If I modify that entry, and take its original contents, and
> > put them into a new entry, it works, but the pre-existing one that was
> > created in 2.5, if I put my mobile in that line, its not working.
> >
> >
> >
> > I looked in mysql in lcr_rule to see if I could see any noticeable
> > difference between the old "upgraded" entry, and the new one, but I'm
> > guessing the problem lay in lcr_rule_target.
> >
> >
> >
> > Deleting the non working rule and making a new one fixes the problem,
> > but how can I run a query again lcr_rule and lcr_rule_target to see
> > there are no other broken entries like this one was? (Also the broken
> > rule is still in the table, but not in the GUI... didn't make much
> > sense to me?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Matthew,
> >
> > the rules matching works like that:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) match according to longest Request-URI user part match
> >
> > (2) match according to tuple's priority
> >
> > (3) match according to tuple's randomized weight
> >
> >
> >
> > So first of all it matches the longest prefix (no matter about
> > priority)
> >
> > Then the priority is take in place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 02/06/2014 12:58 PM, Matthew Ogden wrote:
> >
> > >* I have 3 peering groups, 2 on priority 2, and another on priority
> > >4.*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* Inside each of those is only one peering server.*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* The group on priority 4 has a peering rule, the full length of my
> > >mobile*
> >
> > >* number in "Callee Prefix", the others have some peering rules, but
> > >they*
> >
> > >* are much shorter, only 4 digits, or no digits (default).*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* But lowest priority server is never used to phone my mobile .
> > >Templates*
> >
> > >* are on 2.8.18*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* I just get this: Feb  6 13:46:52 spce /usr/sbin/kamailio[2359]:
> > >INFO:*
> >
> > >* <script>: Load gws matching calling part*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* And the first peer it uses, is not the one I had expected it to.*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* I have also tried reducing the digits that match my mobile number,
> > >but*
> >
> > >* that didn't make an impact.*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* On at least version 2.5 or 2.6 this did work as expected.*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* I wondered... perhaps this is broken during an upgrade, and the
> > >data is*
> >
> > >* missing a column during upgrade process or something like that... I
> > >then*
> >
> > >* added an entry again for my mobile number and it works!*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* Instead of re-adding every entry, can I check in the DB what the*
> >
> > >* difference might be?*
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >* _______________________________________________*
> >
> > >* Spce-user mailing list*
> >
> > >* Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> > ><http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user>*
> >
> > >* http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> > ><http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user>*
> >
> > >
>
>
>
>




More information about the Spce-user mailing list