5 Aug
2003
5 Aug
'03
6:51 p.m.
Thanks Jan,
So the loose_route function only check to see if the "lr" parameter is in
the Route Header? It does not insert or modify any Route Headers?
Regards,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] loose_route question
Hello,
the reason why we use the condition below is that there were (and
probably still are) some user agents that strip parameters (including
lr) from Route header fields.
loose_route function returns 1 if the message being processed will be
sent to a different destination than Request-URI. In this case if one of
user agents would strip ;lr parameters and the request spirals through
the proxy, strange things could happend without the condition.
So the condition is there to deal with broken user agents.
Jan.
On 04-08 20:37, Ricardo Villa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to understand a little bit better the "loose route"
concept. I have seen 2 different configs for ser:
>
> Sometimes the config has just:
> loose_route();
>
> ...and sometimes it has:
>
> if (loose_route()) {
> t_relay();
> break;
> };
>
> How exactly do these 2 differ? The README says: "The function performs
loose routing as defined in RFC3261", but why would I put a t_relay() after
checking for loose_route()?
>
> What I can tell so far is that loose routing leaves the next hop in the
Route
header, but I don't understand which one of the above two examples
actually tell SER to do that.
Thanks,
Ricardo Villa
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers