|Summary:||ASTERISK-12166: If HANGUPCAUSE is 3 (No route to destination) why Asterisk replies a 503?|
|Reporter:||Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc)||Labels:|
|Date Opened:||2008-06-10 04:50:42||Date Closed:||2011-06-07 14:08:25|
|Description:||From RFC 3398:|
ISUP Cause value SIP response
1 unallocated number 404 Not Found
2 no route to network 404 Not found
3 no route to destination 404 Not found
But if Asterisk does:
exten => XXX,1,Dial(SIP/non_existing_peer)
SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable
X-Asterisk-HangupCause: No route to destination
Why not a 404 as RFC 3398 suggests?
****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ******
Of course I can set manually the SIP response code with:
but why Asterisk is not more RFC compliant in this subject?
|Comments:||By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-06-10 07:32:37|
chan_sip does correctly map that cause code to 404 Not Found. What I suspect is happening is that Congestion is being called on the channel which causes the 503 Service Unavailable to be sent back. Please attack a complete console output to confirm this.
By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc) 2008-06-10 08:07:02
Is it enough with this CLI output?:
-- Executing [555@pruebas:1] Dial("SIP/pruebas200-08186c00", "SIP/non_existing_peer") in new stack
[Jun 10 15:12:49] WARNING: chan_sip.c:2923 create_addr: No such host: non_existing_peer
Really destroying SIP dialog 'firstname.lastname@example.org' Method: INVITE
[Jun 10 15:12:49] WARNING: app_dial.c:1183 dial_exec_full: Unable to create channel of type 'SIP' (cause 3 - No route to destination)
== Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:0/0/1)
== Auto fallthrough, channel 'SIP/pruebas200-08186c00' status is 'CHANUNAVAIL'
Really destroying SIP dialog 'email@example.com' Method: ACK
By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-06-10 08:08:39
That auto fallthrough will call Congestion on the channel and send 503 Service Unavailable.
By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc) 2008-06-10 08:12:19
but is it the expected or the correct behaviour? is it a bug?
By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-06-10 08:14:30
If Congestion is called on a channel, what do you expect it to do? For me I expect it to send back Congestion.
By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc) 2008-06-10 08:54:10
Yes, maybe it's a limitation/issue in 'autofallthrough'.
By: Michiel van Baak (mvanbaak) 2008-06-14 05:05:48
This is expected behaviour.
Have a look at the default stdexten macro. It will act based on dialstatus and not auto-fallthrough