6 May
2003
6 May
'03
2:09 a.m.
On 05-05 16:27, Gulherme Dal Pizzol wrote:
Jan,
If I'm working with RFC2543 compliant phones (such as ATA) may I use loose
routing? Will cisco ata understand lr parameter and generate an ACK/BYE
message correctly?
Loose routing is backwards compatible, that means RFC2543 compliant
devices should work with RFC3261 compliant servers.
But there are some user agents that strip the lr parameter when
generating Route header fields (i.e. Record-Route contained lr
parameter but Route created by the user-agent didn't). If that is your
case then you can use modparam("rr", "enable_full_route", 1) which
will insert ;lr=on instead of just ;lr which worked for us.
You should give loose routig a try and if it doesn't work for any
reason then switch back to strict routing (please report such a
misbehavior to me).
Jan.
Hello,
is there any reason why you need strict routing ? You should use loose
routing instead (using record_route() function), strict routing has been
deprecated. If you really need strict routing that record_route_strict
is the right function.
Jan.
On 05-05 15:46, Gulherme Dal Pizzol wrote:
> Fellows,
>
> I started using the cvs version of ser instead of 0.8.10. But I'm
> facing some doubts on strict routing vs. loose routing.
>
> In 0.8.10 I was using:
>
> addRecordRoute();
>
> rewriteFromRoute();
>
> Now in CVS version, by default strict routing is disabled, right?
>
> So, according to the rr module, I need to use record_route_strict, so
> I compiled rr module with it. Now, I'm using
>
> record_route_strict() instead of addRecordRoute() and loose_route()
> instead of
> rewriteFromRoute();
>
> Is this correct, or am I missing something?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Guilherme.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers