24 Aug
2005
24 Aug
'05
5:32 p.m.
yeah, maybe more from a user perspective, because most of the time I
know what I want to do, just dont have a clue what function should be
used, or what its called, so a example of use maybe good.
EG like inv_timer, which was being discussed on serusers, now most
people may like to change timers, for IP --IP calling and have this
different to ip --> PSTN, but they may not know the using avp and
inv_timer does this, hence a example of use, could be noted...maybe
could have a tips and tricks section, where users may post.
Iqbal
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Iqbal,
I was thinking to a short doc to describe the route types and their
utility, what functions may or may not be called and so on....
regards,
bogdan
Iqbal wrote:
tks, I was just thinking with all these new
features a simple one
paragraph of "how to use it" would help , because then users like me
could see how it may help/fit into their scenario
Iqbal
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
.
Hi Iqbal,
you can use the branch route if you want to add/remove headers
independently, per branch. Imagine the following scenario:
you are doing parallel forking to a phone and to a GW; for the phone
you want to add header to set the ringing type, but this make no
sense to send also to GW; on the other hand you want to add to GW
some headers containing billing information, info that you do not
want to go also to the phone.
So, what you do in branch route? if uri points to GW, add the
billing (or whatever) header to the request; if points to an usrloc
client, add the ringing type header.
regards,
bogdan
Iqbal wrote:
So as a user, how would/could I use this
Iqbal
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I just finished adding support for BRANCH routes. The idea and
> frame were partial ported from SER (thanks to Juha for extracting
> and adapting patches). For those who are not familiar with this
> concept: branch route is a route to be execute separately for each
> branch before being sent out - changes in that route should
> reflect only on that branch.
>
> I say partial because the features, implementation were improved.
> Shortly here is a list:
> - remove from grammar default BRANCH ROUTE definition - since
> this is a 100% TM route, make no sense
> - RURI may be changed from a branch route (the routing will
> accordingly change); This capability is essential, since there are
> core function which alter the RURI, functions which cannot be
> blocked in specific route types - not handling this, may easyly
> lead to memory faults or leaks.
> - flags per branch - if flags are changed in branch_route, the
> change will not be visible for other branches, but it will be
> visible for all replies of that branch (it might be useful for per
> branch NAT traversal)
> - full AVP support in branch route
> - more efficient handling of lumps (changes in request) -
> instead of cloning and removing the entire lump tree for each
> branch, using lump flags, after each branch, the original lump
> tree will be just cleaned only what was added during branch route
> will be removed).
>
>
> still pending: how to handle append_branch() core function.....I
> will prefer to handle properly all core functions, since their
> execution cannot be banned from specific routes.
>
> For the moment only textops, avpops and xlog modules were enabled
> for branch route. Other will come in the future.
>
>
> regards,
> Bogdan
> PS: testing done only superficial (is quite late now).....any
> help/reports are welcomed :D
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> .
>
.