12 Jul
2007
12 Jul
'07
3:26 a.m.
Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 21:57:15 Martin Hoffmann
wrote:
That is a non-issue. This ACK needs special treatment anyways -- it is
to be consumed by tm.
Is there any argument against putting a
if (method == "ACK") {
t_relay();
drop();
}
somewhere way up in your config?
Regards,
Martin
In most cases this is what you want, because the
presence of Routes
indicates an in-dialog message which you want to treat differently (In
practice, most UAs just forward the message to the outgoing proxy
without adding a Route header, which is perfectly legal as well). The
proper test for this, of course, is to check for the presence of a To
tag. But it seems to be common to all SER configs I have seen to misuse
loose_route() in this way.
The realization of the fact that the presence or absence of To-tag is not
enough to decide if a request belongs to a dialog or not. The big exception
here is the ACK for negative replies. It has a To-tag but a dialog was not
established.