21 Sep
2012
21 Sep
'12
4:08 p.m.
On 9/21/12 11:37 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
the second is better in
this case, because will avoid a loop through
local sockets. Also, your case is very rare, the warning is good to spot
if someone changed the uri in route headers.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat
Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu
If there will be no transport layer bridging, so
no
double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine
anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is
expecting a local socket on double Route headers.
daniel,
yes, everything works fine, it is just that warning that i would like to
get rid of. is it ok to change it to debug? or perhaps loose_route
could have a param that tells it to skip the socket test?