Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: if you do these kind of modifications, please don't do it at the expense of performance of current, standards compliant operation of the module. just for curiosity, can you override the behavior of your email client so that it doesn't obey the priority of MX records? if not, why would it be necessary for enum records? -- juha

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: the owner of enum record may have decided that he wants to be first contacted at a given uri and, if that fails, at another one, or more than one uris simultaneously, etc. for that purpose enum NAPTR record contains two fields, order and preference: Order A 16-bit unsigned integer specifying the order in which the NAPTR records MUST be processed to ensure the correct ordering of rules. Low numbers are processed before high numbers, and once a NAPTR is found whose rule "matches" the target, the client MUST NOT consider any NAPTRs with a higher value for order (except as noted below for the Flags field). Preference A 16-bit unsigned integer that specifies the order in which NAPTR records with equal "order" values SHOULD be processed, low numbers being processed before high numbers. This is similar to the preference field in an MX record, and is used so domain administrators can direct clients towards more capable hosts or lighter weight protocols. A client MAY look at records with higher preference values if it has a good reason to do so such as not understanding the preferred protocol or service. The important difference between Order and Preference is that once a match is found the client MUST NOT consider records with a different Order but they MAY process records with the same Order but different Preferences. I.e., Preference is used to give weight to rules that are considered the same from an authority standpoint but not from a simple load balancing standpoint. in my opinion, sip proxy should obey the wish of the enum record owner as specified by these two fields. it is the same as with q values of registered contacts. proxy should not mess around with them. -- juha

Hi there, so, without messing with the order/priority of the records, we can go for the following options: 1) fork or not - use only first record (according to priority) or use all of them; 2) if fork - what kind of fork: serial or parallel (both respecting the priorities) does everybody agree with this frame? regards, Bogdan Klaus Darilion wrote:

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: I prefer the second one. the highest prior URI should go into the current branch, and the other URIs should go into AVPs ordered by priority (like load_contacts from lcr module). Then, serial forking can be implemented in the routing logic. regards, klaus

Klaus Darilion writes: lcr module supports serial forking using load_contacts/next_contacts functions. -- juha

Klaus Darilion writes: enum module has nothing to do with parallel or sequential forking. it simply sets q value of contacts based on parameter values in naptr records. you can then specify in your ser.cfg how you want forking to be done. -- juha

Klaus Darilion writes: see load_contacts/next_contacts documentation of lcr module. -- juha

Klaus Darilion writes: exactly, juha

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: i implemented load_contacts/next_contacts functions because native serial forking by tm module didn't exist and touching tm module code myself was out of question. a tm based implementation of serial forking makes sense provided that it gives some real added value as compared to existing load_contacts/next_contacts implementation. if not, i would suggest using the development cycles to implement something that doesn't currently exist. -- juha