[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Re: stateful forking?

Hi Atle! I knew it had to be sth with append_branch, but all (the few) examples I looked at had append_branch with a full sip uri as parameter ... I will try this, but I am sure this will work :) Cesc On 4/19/07, Atle Samuelsen <clona(a)cyberhouse.no> wrote: > >Hi Cesc :) > >In this case I think I would write something like : >if(!message="REGISTER"){record_route()}; > >if(method=="MESSAGE"){ > t_on_reply("5"); > rewritehostport("SER3"); > append_branch(); > rewritehostport("SER2"); > t_relay(); >} > >- atle > >* Cesc <cesc.santa(a)gmail.com> [070419 19:26]: >> With some ser-ish routing code ... what i do now: >> >> if ( MESSAGE ) { >> t_on_reply("5"); >> rewritehostport( SER3); >> forward("IP_MCAST_LOC"); >> >> >> rewritehostport( SER2 ); >> route( ROUTE_RELAY_DO_TRELAY ); >> break; >> }; >> >> On 4/19/07, Cesc <cesc.santa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >Me = using ser 0.9.6 >> > >> >It is not very clear for me what I need to do, so bear with me :) >> > >> >I have a setup such: >> > >> >phone ..... SER1 ........ SER 2 >> > | ................. SER3 >> >So, one ser being frontend of the other 2 ... now, let say that phone >> >sends MESSAGE msgs, which I want both (ser 2 and 3 ) to receive them. >> >So, forking, right? >> >In a previous setup, it sort of work by doing t_newtran() and then >> >sequentially forward(ser2_ip) and t_forward_nonack(ser3_ip_port) ... >> >not done by me, the setup, i mean. But eventhough I set t_on_reply() >> >routes, I don't see the OK/errors msgs when coming back. >> >Why? >> >Even better, if I could set a different on_reply for ser2 and for ser3 ... >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Cesc >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Serdev mailing list >> Serdev(a)lists.iptel.org >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev >