Re: [Serusers] loose_route question

At 12:51 AM 8/6/2003, Ricardo Villa wrote: No. loose_route performs loose routing as specified in 3261. If there is a route header field, it calculates next hop, modifies request-uri if needed, consumes Route header fields as needed, and returns true. OTherwise it returns false. If t_relay is called later, it uses transport destination calculated with loose_route. It does modify the route set according to 3261 rules. Again: both scripts alternatives are possible, use the one with the condition. It better deals with some UAs which break the specification. Do you really want me to tell you the details? ok, be mu guest, this is the case: 1) Cisco IOS gateways corrupt record-routing in that they strip parameters. If rr inserted by SER includes ;lr, it will be gone. 2) In some circumstances (e.g., so-called spirals) SER may record-route itself twice. 3) If a BYE with corrupted two Route header fields comes from IOS, SER's loose_route places its own URI from Route to request-uri (that's because ;lr is gone due to the IOS bug); uri==myself matches and user lookup is executed, resulting typically in a mistake; (correct behaviour would be to identify the request as uri!=myself and simply processing it) 4) To make sure that requests with broken rr-ing never enter the script, use the condition mentioned previously. To determine that a requst should be forwarded, without any other script processing logic it uses the "was there some rr-ing?" test as opposed to the "uri==myself" test. -Jiri -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/