4 Mar
2008
4 Mar
'08
5:21 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
<bogdan(a)voice-system.ro> wrote:
Hi guys,
Thanks a lot for the valuable input. In my opinion,trying to summarize
the discussion:
what we need is not to have a mechanism to ignore the C timer, but
rather a better way to manage/control C timer.
This means:
1) dropping (after all) the "noisy_ctimer" as it proves to be more or
less a hack
I'm all for it.
2) add new feature to manage/control C timer (like
onreply route change
support, different routes for timeout and failures, etc)..
I would like to leave onreply route as is and deal with timeouts in a
timeout_route.
It will keep things structured and organized. If I need to check
something about a timer, it will be in a single place, not spread
around my config (just my 2c).
Is this commonly agreed?
It looks like.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas