Hi, It seems I'm not as good as I thought I was to actually read the dev-list :-)

According to the thread setting path:<obp-ip>;lr;<received-ip> I'm not sure if this is currently possible (without avp parsing) but it seems that not using received at all at least fixes my problem. The setup (demo) Im using is as follows (and I'm pretty satisfied of the picture ;-) ):

UAC | OBP#1(NAT)--OS#1 -| | \ / | | / | DNS-SRV /\ | t_replicate/db-cluster | / \ | UAC | OBP#2(NAT)--OS#2 -|

The received parameter messed up my routing logic while I was trying to route the messages back from where the REGISTER was replicated from. (I tried to add received by calling fix_nated_register()..) In this scenario, both db and servers will have the same path and location entries for the different UAC's

Right now, I'm not sure if the received parameters is necessary.... And then again, it's not the first time I've been wrong :-9

br hw

ons, 22,.02.2006 kl. 20.54 +0200, skrev Bogdan-Andrei Iancu:

Hi Helge,

this is a topic I was discussing with Andreas since he contributed the path patch. currently the path has priority against received, but IMHO it should be the opposite..

see here some arguments: http://www.openser.org/pipermail/devel/2006-January/001799.html any suggestion / opinions are welcome.

regards, bogdan

Helge Waastad wrote:

...

Hi, I've got a question regarding the handling of location information. I came up in a situation where I had my dispatcher layer adding path to the register before it was sent to the registrar. However, if the register then again is replicated to another server, and the next server is adding a received to the usrloc entry, how should this server forward the INVITES...? To the "path" or to the "received"?

PS, I'm not saying this is how it should be done, I'm just curious about the implications :-)

br hw

Mvh, Helge Waastad Senior Engineer Smartnet tlf: 67830017

---

---

Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users