ups....my mistake on the flag mask problem....it looks like when passing
the flag to append_branch, the shift operator was missing.....so you
were right! :)
regards,
bogdan
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi John,
I did some reviewing of the patch.
first of all, there was no bug about flag processing. The variable was
keeping the flag index and the function setflag() takes an index; for
append_branch() the mask was computed.
but I agree that keeping the mask is a much better approach.
secondly, yes, there was a bug in pushing the NAT flag into messages
when only the branches were nated.
I will apply your patch a slightly modified version. Thanks again for it!
regards,
bogdan
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi John,
at a first look it might be correct what you are saying....I will
take a closer look in the next days (right now I'm deep involved with
the OpenSER Summit) and if ok, I will commit it on CVS.
regards,
bogdan
John Riordan wrote:
Hi,
Issue:
In CPL, during a proxy to a location set the
value of the branch flag being passed to append_branch
is currently the configured value for "nat_flag" (ie 6).
However, append_branch is expecting a bit mapped flag value (ie 0x40).
Also in CPL, the nat flag is getting set for the msg
if any branches have the nat flag set. This can cause
the RURI branch to have the nat flag set when the
location associated with the RURI branch does not
have the branch flag set.
Patch:
Addressed the two issues above.
Also, to be consistant with the default used in the
registrar module, made the default for nat flag -1
in the cpl-c module.
John
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
