I do not know if it also works this way. I always used the version I sent in the previous email and it always worked. Thus I never had the need to change it.

klaus

Douglas Garstang wrote:

Ok...so... why not just call append_branch("192.168.10.8:5060") without first calling rewritehostport("192.168.10.8")? It seems like redundant information.

-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:01 AM To: Douglas Garstang Cc: users@openser.org Subject: Re: [Users] More Routing....

Where's the problem? in route[1] or in the failure route?

You need append branch in failure route

klaus

Douglas Garstang wrote:

...

Can someone please tell me why the following extremely simple example doesn't first attempt to relay to 192.168.10.7, and then if that fails, try 192.168.10.8? What am I missing here? The documentation says that t_relay() simple sends statefully to the current URI.... seems to be what I am doing. What am I missing? Please help!

route(1);

route[1] { rewritehostport("192.168.10.7:5060"); t_on_failure("2"); t_relay(); }

failure_route[2] { rewritehostport('192.168.10.8:5060"); t_relay(); }

Doug.

---

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