Dave,<br><br>That sounds like a clever way to handle it. I'd like to see more people give that a try and report back how it works in their various scenarios.<br><br>-MC<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Dave R. Kompel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drk@drkngs.net" target="_blank">drk@drkngs.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>One trick I've noticed that nobody is doing for outbound limit, is using "execute_on_originate" to do the limit there on each channel. You can specify it in the local variables per channel. <br><br>The following would do it for each B-Leg, w/o messing associating the coun't to your a-leg session:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>bridge:[execute_on_originate=limit hash foo gwa 10]sofia/gateway/gwa/$1|[execute_on_originate=limit hash foo gwb 10]sofia/gateway/gwb/$1 ... and so on...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I use this all the time in a more extended way. I use execute_on_originate to call my own dialplan app, but you could use it to invoke a lua script as well on the session of the B-Leg, before the call is originated. If you just return from your dialplan app, the b-leg will continue, but if you hangup the channel, then it will look like the b-leg failed with the hangup cause you specify, and will get passed back as if the far end returned that cause.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Dave</div><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#0000ff 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px">
<hr>
<b>From:</b> Muhammad Naseer Bhatti [mailto:<a href="mailto:nbhatti@gmail.com" target="_blank">nbhatti@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>To:</b> FreeSWITCH Users Help [mailto:<a href="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tue, 29 May 2012 14:12:01 -0700<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Freeswitch-users] Gateway failover with LUA<div><div class="h5"><br><br>They are two different gateways with two different names, but the same<br>IP address yet the port is different. Possible that limit subsystem is<br>
imposing the limit on the IP address itself and not able to<br>distinguish between the different ports.<br><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div><br>