9 Aug
2011
9 Aug
'11
1:55 p.m.
Hi Folks,
I would like to ask how can I change the $rU (user part of uri) in multiple
appended branches?
In my scenario I do lookup("location") and after this I try to modify an
username using the $rU variable. This works fine until there are several
records in the location table for the given user (registered from different
locations). In this case only one branch is changed and unchanged uri is
sent to an another location.
Is there a way to change it in all branches together?
Thanks for the answer.
Regards,
Efelin
9 Aug
9 Aug
2:50 p.m.
Am 09.08.2011 12:55, schrieb Efelin Novak:
Hi Folks,
I would like to ask how can I change the $rU (user part of uri) in
multiple appended branches?
In my scenario I do lookup("location") and after this I try to modify an
username using the $rU variable. This works fine until there are several
records in the location table for the given user (registered from
different locations). In this case only one branch is changed and
unchanged uri is sent to an another location.
Is there a way to change it in all branches together?
AFAIK no. But you can do it in a "branch route" for every branch separately.
regards
Klaus
Thanks for the answer.
Regards,
Efelin
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
5:40 p.m.
2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
AFAIK no. But you can do it in a "branch
route" for every branch separately.
And isn't it a bug? why the RURI username is just changed in a single
branch? Theorically operations over RURI made in a route block should
affect to all the branches, am I wrong? it's the very same as giving
value to a flag or AVP after doing loockup and fetching multiple
contacts. If I inspect such flag or AVP in branch_route I should find
it for every branches. Why should changing the RURI behave different?
IMHO it's a bug, or do I miss something?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
6:09 p.m.
Am 09.08.2011 16:40, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
I wouldn't call it a bug. It is a limitation of how sip-router works,
probably a design decision from early SER days. To overcome this
limitation and allow manipulation of all branches (not only the main
branch), features like the branch route were added.
Any maybe I only want to manipulate a single branch. IMO manipulating
all branches is as buggy as manipulating just a single branch - it
depends on what the user needs.
regards
Klaus
AFAIK no. But you can do it in a "branch
route" for every branch separately.
And isn't it a bug? why the RURI username is just changed in a single
branch? Theorically operations over RURI made in a route block should
affect to all the branches, am I wrong? it's the very same as giving
value to a flag or AVP after doing loockup and fetching multiple
contacts. If I inspect such flag or AVP in branch_route I should find
it for every branches. Why should changing the RURI behave different?
IMHO it's a bug, or do I miss something?
6:30 p.m.
2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
I wouldn't call it a bug. It is a limitation of
how sip-router works,
probably a design decision from early SER days. To overcome this
limitation and allow manipulation of all branches (not only the main
branch), features like the branch route were added.
Any maybe I only want to manipulate a single branch. IMO manipulating
all branches is as buggy as manipulating just a single branch - it
depends on what the user needs.
The behaviour is unexpected. Imagine you do lookup (which fetchs 2
contacts) and after that, still in route block, do setflag(1). Such
flag is set in branch_route for both generated branches. Why setting
the $rU in same circumstances should behave different?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
6:41 p.m.
On Tuesday 09 August 2011, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
The behaviour is unexpected. Imagine you do lookup
(which fetchs 2
contacts) and after that, still in route block, do setflag(1). Such
flag is set in branch_route for both generated branches. Why setting
the $rU in same circumstances should behave different?
Flags are related to the whole transaction, so being able to see them on all
branches is expected. Use branch_flags if you want to set them per branch.
$rU is related to the 'main' branch in request_route. There is no way to set
the request uri for all branches in a transaction.
--
Greetings,
Alex Hermann
6:45 p.m.
No, but if you are manually creating them via append_branch(), you can set the RURI
beforehand in, say, a failure route. It will apply to the current (failed, let's say)
branch, but will be copied into the one as well, because that's how append_branch()
works.
I would use that as a manual hack around needing a different RURI for every usrloc contact
for an AOR.
--
This message was painstakingly thumbed out on my mobile, so apologies for brevity, errors,
and general sloppiness.
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
260 Peachtree Street NW
Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Fax: +1-404-961-1892
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Alex Hermann <alex(a)speakup.nl> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 August 2011, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
The behaviour is unexpected. Imagine you do
lookup (which fetchs 2
contacts) and after that, still in route block, do setflag(1). Such
flag is set in branch_route for both generated branches. Why setting
the $rU in same circumstances should behave different?
Flags are related to the whole transaction, so being able to see them on all
branches is expected. Use branch_flags if you want to set them per branch.
$rU is related to the 'main' branch in request_route. There is no way to set
the request uri for all branches in a transaction.
--
Greetings,
Alex Hermann
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
7:25 p.m.
2011/8/9 Alex Hermann <alex(a)speakup.nl>nl>:
$rU is related to the 'main' branch in
request_route.
Which is supposed to be the "main branch" when doing lookup() and
fetching 2 or more contacts/branches?
The reply is: random, probably the first retrieved contact from the
location table (or memory). Is it really an expected/correct/arguable
behavior? I don't think so.
NOTE: Anyhow this is the way in which it works.
Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
4854
days inactive
4854
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Alex Balashov -
Alex Hermann -
Efelin Novak -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion