any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Julien Chavanton
Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
 
The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
 
INVITE :
 
 10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
 
RESPONSE :
 
U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
 
U 10.2.0.1:5060 -> 10.0.20.14:53584
SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
 

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Julien,

see:
http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html

Regards,
Bogdan

Julien Chavanton wrote:

> Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>  
> The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>  
> INVITE :
>  
>  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>  
> RESPONSE :
>  
> U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
> SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>  
> U 10.2.0.1:5060 -> 10.0.20.14:53584
> SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

thrillerbee
Bogdan,

Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks a lot of existing applications.

Thanks.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Julien,

see:
http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html

Regards,
Bogdan

Julien Chavanton wrote:
> Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>
> The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>
> INVITE :
>
>  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>
> RESPONSE :
>
> U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
> SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>
> U 10.2.0.1:5060 -> 10.0.20.14:53584
> SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Dave Singer
Julien,

I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up with this:
        if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
                t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
                exit;
        }

I think you could use t_reply("503", $(<reply>rr));   (note the use of <reply> to indicate the reply context see usage examples near the top of this link: ) to have it use the original reason text instead of always sending "Service Unavailable" no matter what reason came with the 503. I haven't tried it yet myself.
I'm doing this because I'm just using it as a proxy to mangle headers and not decide where to go next. So I really do just want to pass the response back to the server doing the routing logic. It would seem passing the 503 would be the normal behavior in this case. Plus like the situation of Julien which I also have, where the upstream routers are not properly handling the diff between a 500 and 503.

So I agree that it would be nice if there were a param and/or var that could be set for the desired behavior like the invite timeout settings for tm.

Bogdan, 

Is "disable_503_translation" ( from the subject of the link you posted ) an actual parameter (un)documented?

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:44 PM, thrillerbee <[hidden email]> wrote:
Bogdan,

Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks a lot of existing applications.

Thanks.


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Julien,

see:
http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html

Regards,
Bogdan

Julien Chavanton wrote:
> Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>
> The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>
> INVITE :
>
>  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>
> RESPONSE :
>
> U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
> SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>
> U 10.2.0.1:5060 -> 10.0.20.14:53584
> SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users



_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Taisto Qvist
In reply to this post by thrillerbee
Hi,

Just to explain in detail, since I'm a bit puzzled at an application
needing this...NOT doing so creates the potential for breaking a lot
more.

The 503 response is used to indicate to the received that

"I am completely broken, please dont send *anything* to me for a while."

A proxy that forwards a 503 response straight through, is "telling"
the previous hop that it should not be used for any request whatsoever,
usually causing that previous hop to blacklist the entire proxy
for a undefined duration, or according to time specified in the
Retry-After header.
In otherwords, the entire proxy becomes dead for all requests from
the previous hop which received the 503. Is that acceptable?

Any application based on proxies relaying 503 responses *unmodified*,
is basing their application logic on something that goes against
the defined behavior of rfc3261 and seems quite unusual, if not dangerous.

That said, if you really, really need it and capable of building
opensips yourself (which I need and do during my sip troubleshooting
course) it takes 3 seconds to fix by simply opening msg_translator.c
and modifying the line:

if ( msg->first_line.u.reply.statuscode==503 )

to

if ( 0 && msg->first_line.u.reply.statuscode==503 )

and recompiling.

The latest versions even has a "int disable_503_translation = 0;"
at the beginning of msg_translator.c, making it even easier to
disable, although I am very puzzled why you would need this in real
life. I am interested to hear though!

I have checked/seen whether it can be disabled in configuration.

Regards
Taisto Qvist
IP-Solutions.se




thrillerbee skrev 2010-10-07 23:44:
Bogdan,

Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks a lot of existing applications.

Thanks.

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Julien,

see:
http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html

Regards,
Bogdan

Julien Chavanton wrote:
> Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>
> The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>
> INVITE :
>
>  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>
> RESPONSE :
>
> U 10.0.4.202:5060 -> 10.2.0.1:5060
> SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>
> U 10.2.0.1:5060 -> 10.0.20.14:53584
> SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
In reply to this post by thrillerbee
The link I posted is about the new core parameter:
       disable_503_translation

for disabling the 503 -> 500 translation.

So you can control it.

Regards,
Bogdan

thrillerbee wrote:

> Bogdan,
>
> Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks a
> lot of existing applications.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Julien,
>
>     see:
>     http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
>
>     Regards,
>     Bogdan
>
>     Julien Chavanton wrote:
>     > Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?
>     >
>     > The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>     >
>     > INVITE :
>     >
>     >  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>     >
>     > RESPONSE :
>     >
>     > U 10.0.4.202:5060 <http://10.0.4.202:5060> -> 10.2.0.1:5060
>     <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>     > SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>     >
>     > U 10.2.0.1:5060 <http://10.2.0.1:5060> -> 10.0.20.14:53584
>     <http://10.0.20.14:53584>
>     > SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Users mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>     15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
>     www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
In reply to this post by Dave Singer
Hi Dave,

See: http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreFcn16#toc34  (added the
docs for this module)

Regards,
Bogdan

Dave Singer wrote:

> Julien,
>
> I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up with this:
>         if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
>                 t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>                 exit;
>         }
>
> I think you could use t_reply("503", $(<reply>rr));   (note the use of
> <reply> to indicate the reply context see usage examples near the top
> of this link: <http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreVar16> ) to
> have it use the original reason text instead of always sending
> "Service Unavailable" no matter what reason came with the 503. I
> haven't tried it yet myself.
> I'm doing this because I'm just using it as a proxy to mangle headers
> and not decide where to go next. So I really do just want to pass the
> response back to the server doing the routing logic. It would seem
> passing the 503 would be the normal behavior in this case. Plus like
> the situation of Julien which I also have, where the upstream routers
> are not properly handling the diff between a 500 and 503.
>
> So I agree that it would be nice if there were a param and/or var that
> could be set for the desired behavior like the invite timeout settings
> for tm.
>
> Bogdan,
>
> Is "disable_503_translation" ( from the subject of the link you posted
> ) an actual parameter (un)documented?
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:44 PM, thrillerbee <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Bogdan,
>
>     Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks
>     a lot of existing applications.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Julien,
>
>         see:
>         http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
>
>         Regards,
>         Bogdan
>
>         Julien Chavanton wrote:
>         > Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with
>         500 ?
>         >
>         > The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>         >
>         > INVITE :
>         >
>         >  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>         >
>         > RESPONSE :
>         >
>         > U 10.0.4.202:5060 <http://10.0.4.202:5060> -> 10.2.0.1:5060
>         <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>         > SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>         >
>         > U 10.2.0.1:5060 <http://10.2.0.1:5060> -> 10.0.20.14:53584
>         <http://10.0.20.14:53584>
>         > SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>         >
>         >
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Users mailing list
>         > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>
>
>         --
>         Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>         OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>         15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
>         www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Users mailing list
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Dave Singer
Thank you very much!!
I'm doing class 4 switching and for some reason all my customers expect a 503 as a slow down your sending me too much traffic. Not the I'm broken.
Is the 500 the proper way to tell them to back off a little. Is there a header that should be used to tell them how much to back off?

Thanks again Bogdan for all your work and help you give everyone. I don't know how you keep up.

Dave

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Dave,

See: http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreFcn16#toc34  (added the
docs for this module)

Regards,
Bogdan

Dave Singer wrote:
> Julien,
>
> I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up with this:
>         if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
>                 t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>                 exit;
>         }
>
> I think you could use t_reply("503", $(<reply>rr));   (note the use of
> <reply> to indicate the reply context see usage examples near the top
> of this link: <http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreVar16> ) to
> have it use the original reason text instead of always sending
> "Service Unavailable" no matter what reason came with the 503. I
> haven't tried it yet myself.
> I'm doing this because I'm just using it as a proxy to mangle headers
> and not decide where to go next. So I really do just want to pass the
> response back to the server doing the routing logic. It would seem
> passing the 503 would be the normal behavior in this case. Plus like
> the situation of Julien which I also have, where the upstream routers
> are not properly handling the diff between a 500 and 503.
>
> So I agree that it would be nice if there were a param and/or var that
> could be set for the desired behavior like the invite timeout settings
> for tm.
>
> Bogdan,
>
> Is "disable_503_translation" ( from the subject of the link you posted
> ) an actual parameter (un)documented?
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:44 PM, thrillerbee <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Bogdan,
>
>     Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately, breaks
>     a lot of existing applications.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Julien,
>
>         see:
>         http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
>
>         Regards,
>         Bogdan
>
>         Julien Chavanton wrote:
>         > Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with
>         500 ?
>         >
>         > The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute somewhere else
>         >
>         > INVITE :
>         >
>         >  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>         >
>         > RESPONSE :
>         >
>         > U 10.0.4.202:5060 <http://10.0.4.202:5060> -> 10.2.0.1:5060
>         <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>         > SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>         >
>         > U 10.2.0.1:5060 <http://10.2.0.1:5060> -> 10.0.20.14:53584
>         <http://10.0.20.14:53584>
>         > SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>         >
>         >
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Users mailing list
>         > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>         >
>
>
>         --
>         Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>         OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>         15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
>         www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Users mailing list
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: any reason why Opensips would replace 503 with 500 ?

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Dave,

Se RFC3261:

21.5.4 503 Service Unavailable

   The server is temporarily unable to process the request due to a
   temporary overloading or maintenance of the server.  The server MAY
   indicate when the client should retry the request in a Retry-After
   header field.  If no Retry-After is given, the client MUST act as if
   it had received a 500 (Server Internal Error) response.

   A client (proxy or UAC) receiving a 503 (Service Unavailable) SHOULD
   attempt to forward the request to an alternate server.  It SHOULD NOT
   forward any other requests to that server for the duration specified
   in the Retry-After header field, if present.

   Servers MAY refuse the connection or drop the request instead of
   responding with 503 (Service Unavailable).


So a 503 + Retry-After should od th trick for you, but not sure if your
customers properly implement the Retry After hdr.

Regards,
Bogdan

Dave Singer wrote:

> Thank you very much!!
> I'm doing class 4 switching and for some reason all my customers
> expect a 503 as a slow down your sending me too much traffic. Not the
> I'm broken.
> Is the 500 the proper way to tell them to back off a little. Is there
> a header that should be used to tell them how much to back off?
>
> Thanks again Bogdan for all your work and help you give everyone. I
> don't know how you keep up.
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Dave,
>
>     See: http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreFcn16#toc34  (added the
>     docs for this module)
>
>     Regards,
>     Bogdan
>
>     Dave Singer wrote:
>     > Julien,
>     >
>     > I have been catching it in failure_route and sending it on up
>     with this:
>     >         if (t_check_status("^503$")) {
>     >                 t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>     >                 exit;
>     >         }
>     >
>     > I think you could use t_reply("503", $(<reply>rr));   (note the
>     use of
>     > <reply> to indicate the reply context see usage examples near
>     the top
>     > of this link: <http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsCoreVar16> ) to
>     > have it use the original reason text instead of always sending
>     > "Service Unavailable" no matter what reason came with the 503. I
>     > haven't tried it yet myself.
>     > I'm doing this because I'm just using it as a proxy to mangle
>     headers
>     > and not decide where to go next. So I really do just want to
>     pass the
>     > response back to the server doing the routing logic. It would seem
>     > passing the 503 would be the normal behavior in this case. Plus like
>     > the situation of Julien which I also have, where the upstream
>     routers
>     > are not properly handling the diff between a 500 and 503.
>     >
>     > So I agree that it would be nice if there were a param and/or
>     var that
>     > could be set for the desired behavior like the invite timeout
>     settings
>     > for tm.
>     >
>     > Bogdan,
>     >
>     > Is "disable_503_translation" ( from the subject of the link you
>     posted
>     > ) an actual parameter (un)documented?
>     >
>     > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:44 PM, thrillerbee
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     Bogdan,
>     >
>     >     Is this or could this be configurable?  It, unfortunately,
>     breaks
>     >     a lot of existing applications.
>     >
>     >     Thanks.
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     >     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >         Hi Julien,
>     >
>     >         see:
>     >        
>     http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-September/014505.html
>     >
>     >         Regards,
>     >         Bogdan
>     >
>     >         Julien Chavanton wrote:
>     >         > Hi, is there any reason why Opensips would replace 503
>     with
>     >         500 ?
>     >         >
>     >         > The UA initiating the call expect 503 to reroute
>     somewhere else
>     >         >
>     >         > INVITE :
>     >         >
>     >         >  10.0.20.14(UA) -> 10.2.0.1(Proxy) -> 10.0.4.202(UA)
>     >         >
>     >         > RESPONSE :
>     >         >
>     >         > U 10.0.4.202:5060 <http://10.0.4.202:5060>
>     <http://10.0.4.202:5060> -> 10.2.0.1:5060 <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>     >         <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>     >         > SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
>     >         >
>     >         > U 10.2.0.1:5060 <http://10.2.0.1:5060>
>     <http://10.2.0.1:5060> -> 10.0.20.14:53584 <http://10.0.20.14:53584>
>     >         <http://10.0.20.14:53584>
>     >         > SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >        
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >         >
>     >         > _______________________________________________
>     >         > Users mailing list
>     >         > [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >         > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >         >
>     >
>     >
>     >         --
>     >         Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     >         OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>     >         15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
>     >         www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>     <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>     >
>     >
>     >         _______________________________________________
>     >         Users mailing list
>     >         [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >         http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Users mailing list
>     >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Users mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>     15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
>     www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  


--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
15 - 19 November 2010, Edison, New Jersey, USA
www.voice-system.ro


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users