19 Apr
2007
19 Apr
'07
11 p.m.
Hi Atle!
I knew it had to be sth with append_branch, but all (the few) examples
I looked at had
append_branch with a full sip uri as parameter ... I will try this,
but I am sure this will work :)
Cesc
On 4/19/07, Atle Samuelsen <clona(a)cyberhouse.no> wrote:
Hi Cesc :)
In this case I think I would write something like :
if(!message="REGISTER"){record_route()};
if(method=="MESSAGE"){
t_on_reply("5");
rewritehostport("SER3");
append_branch();
rewritehostport("SER2");
t_relay();
}
- atle
* Cesc <cesc.santa(a)gmail.com> [070419 19:26]:
With some ser-ish routing code ... what i do
now:
if ( MESSAGE ) {
t_on_reply("5");
rewritehostport( SER3);
forward("IP_MCAST_LOC");
rewritehostport( SER2 );
route( ROUTE_RELAY_DO_TRELAY );
break;
};
On 4/19/07, Cesc <cesc.santa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Me = using ser 0.9.6
It is not very clear for me what I need to do, so bear with me :)
I have a setup such:
phone ..... SER1 ........ SER 2
| ................. SER3
So, one ser being frontend of the other 2 ... now, let say that phone
sends MESSAGE msgs, which I want both (ser 2 and 3 ) to receive them.
So, forking, right?
In a previous setup, it sort of work by doing t_newtran() and then
sequentially forward(ser2_ip) and t_forward_nonack(ser3_ip_port) ...
not done by me, the setup, i mean. But eventhough I set t_on_reply()
routes, I don't see the OK/errors msgs when coming back.
Why?
Even better, if I could set a different on_reply for ser2 and for ser3 ...
Regards,
Cesc
_______________________________________________
Serdev mailing list
Serdev(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev