Hi Atle,
Indeed it worked. When using forward instead of append_branch, the on_reply_route would only appear once, either for SER2 or SER3 ... With append_branch, i get notified of each response received ... nice!
Cesc
On 4/19/07, Atle Samuelsen clona@cyberhouse.no wrote:
Hi,
Tell me if it works :) (just fun to know)
_Atle
- Cesc cesc.santa@gmail.com [070419 22:00]:
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@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@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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev