Right, but I was referring to the case where the ruri does not point to you, but (most probably) a PSTN GW.On Monday 16 July 2007 14:04:31 Greger V. Teigre wrote:Ok, let me try to take a step back. This discussion is an example of why ser.cfg sometimes seems like black magic for most users. It's very complicated to get a generic config that works in most scenarios. What we really need to make sure is that people can use the recommended black magic in most cases, that it is intuitive how to add their own stuff, and that we make it difficult to "break".. phew... What would a "normal" user like to know in ser.cfg? 1. Do I need to process like an INVITE or do I t_relay? 2. How do I open or prevent relaying? Ex. I am sure quite a lot of configs will let an INVITE with a pre-loaded Route go through without authentication...Which is not an issue as long as the RURI points to you. Because then you simply route the request to yourself with no Route header any more, and then it should be processed like a request without pre-loaded Route.
I assume you here implicitly mean that they cannot be implemented technically correct for both stateful and stateless? I assumed in my suggestion that we can make an rr param work.I still feel that preloaded_route() and in_dialog() would be simpler to understand for most people.Just to state it clearly: the names of these two function can not be implemented technically correct! Thus I would vote at least against the names.
Right, so maybe in_dialog should be found in tm?If you use has_to_tag(), fine you should know what you are doing. But in_dialog() without being dialog statefull promisses to much.
Indeed.I agree with Martin that maybe having a separate function checking/removing/failing a pre-loaded route is cleaner than letting loose_route() do it.Ok. I'm still trying to evaluate if this is possible or not. See below for more details. But we are talking here about > 2.0 any way, right?
Yes, "corner case" was maybe misphrased. My point was that it does not occur in every setup.The problem of "non-2xx ACK with a preloaded route looks exactly the same then a 2xx ACK" is a corner-case, and I don't see any solution either, than the suggest uri param in the rr.Just to make it clear to everybody: this "corner case" occurs in all setups with a stateless load balancer and where the INVITE gets challenged!
Isn't uri params implemented differently in 2.0? Where the actual params are added before relaying (based on avp)?So, could we automaticlly add the rr param if and only if the original INVITE is forwarded statelessly?I don't think so, because the rr module has no idea when you call record_route() how the request is going to be tramsitted.