On 12/18/09 2:37 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
in the case that i reported, the ack was to 200 ok and thus not part of invite/200 ok transaction. in that case, the ack should be sent to contact uri of 200 ok (there was no rr in 200 ok).
ahh, right, I got it wrong in the first place.
but reply could be negative too. the system has to work no matter if positive or negative reply is received.
of course. Somehow I understood you are talking about ack to negative replies. cancel and ack for negative replies are auto-generated and do not trigger the local-request event route.
Then, in this case, might be good to call the event_route as well. I was thinking the case of negative reply, where no much could have been done in terms of routing.
you mean calling event_route on ack? according to xlog call that i have in event_route [tm:local-request], it is NOT called on ack to 200 ok.
tm:local-request is triggered only by the call of t_uac function from tm. But I'm thinking whether makes sense or not to have it as well for ACK of 200ok for local transactions -- this is generated by tm in other place. All the other requests (again, apart of cancel and ack) self-generated by proxy go via t_uac.
Cheers, Daniel
-- juha
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev