2011/8/9 Carl Wagner :
> Iñaki,
>
> Thank you. Nice explanation.
>
> I plan to open a bug on this with Asterisk. Are there any RFC section(s)
> that I can reference, in case they interpret 3261 the same way I did?
Hi Carl, AFAIR the bug is already (somehow) reported in Asterisk (not
sure however
Iñaki,
Thank you. Nice explanation.
I plan to open a bug on this with Asterisk. Are there any RFC
section(s) that I can reference, in case they interpret 3261 the same
way I did?
Thanks,
Carl
On 08/09/2011 02:33 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/8/9 Carl Wagner:
Hi,
I was looking at
2011/8/9 Alex Hermann :
> $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 e
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
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 shou
2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion :
> 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 m
Am 09.08.2011 16:40, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> 2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion :
>> 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
2011/8/9 Klaus Darilion :
> 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
Hi Laura,
thanks for the patches. I will apply them. Can you attach the patches as
files instead of pasting them inline, so I can just download them from
email and apply? The mail client breaks the withe-spacing and will take
me some time to align them.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 8/8/11 6:00 PM, lau
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
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 us
On Monday 08 August 2011, Yaron Nachum wrote:
> I have seen the match_mode but I haven't seen how is it possible to set it
> up per domain.
>
> I would appreciate if you could explain how.
Hi Yaron,
please always CC to the mailling list.
Its not possible to set the match_mode per domain, its a
2011/8/9 Carl Wagner :
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the 3261 again and have a question.
>
> 16.10 CANCEL Processing (Proxy Behavior)
>... If a matching response context is found, the element MUST
>immediately return a 200 (OK) response to the CANCEL request. In
>this case, the element i
13 matches
Mail list logo
