RE: [Users] More Routing.... - sr-users

14 Dec 2005

Ok, I'm very confused about this. Bogdan mentioned that the RURI is consumed? When is
it consumed?

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:31 AM
To: Douglas Garstang
Cc: users(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] More Routing....

append_branch will add a new branch. But the t_relay in failure route 
only uses the new branch, as the previous branch is alreaddy terminated.

klaus

Douglas Garstang wrote:
...
  Klaus,

 But, doesn't append_branch cause parallel forking? I don't want parallel forking.
If I do parallel forking, the same registration may get delivered to the same Asterisk box
twice, and that's not what I want.

 Doug.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:01 AM
 To: Douglas Garstang
 Cc: users(a)openser.org
 Subject: Re: [Users] More Routing....

 Where's the problem? in route[1] or in the failure route?

 You need append branch in failure route

 klaus

 Douglas Garstang wrote:

 Can someone please tell me why the following
extremely simple example doesn't first attempt to relay to 192.168.10.7, and then if
that fails, try 192.168.10.8? What am I missing here? The documentation says that
t_relay() simple sends statefully to the current URI.... seems to be what I am doing. What
am I missing? Please help!

route(1);

route[1] {
	rewritehostport("192.168.10.7:5060");
	t_on_failure("2");
	t_relay();
}

failure_route[2] {
	rewritehostport('192.168.10.8:5060");
	t_relay();
}

Doug.

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users