12 Jan
2006
12 Jan
'06
8:20 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Maybe is better to have: Path:
<sip:own-address;lr;received=received-address> for the server in front
of nat (load balancer). When loose_route() process the header it can
take the received parameter and use it as dst_uri if no other Route
header is present.
Makes sense and seems to be a cleaner solution, yes.
Otherwise I see troubles to process a Route header
which does not have
server's address -- think about peering with other SIP networks where
you cannot control what the server will add as parameters to Record-Route.
I don't really get your point. In my understanding, this particular
Route header, inserted at the proxy, never leaves the own network
because it will be removed at the next hop (the load balancer in this case).
But I like the idea using the received-param much better anyhow...
So I'd like to port my Path-patch posted on the ser list in October
(http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-October/005847.html) to
openser. There are just one problem: as far as I've read, you're working
on a cacheless solution for usrloc, so there might be quite some code
conflicts if I start off now. So when do you think will your changes be
in CVS?
Andy