Hello, is there any reason why you need strict routing ? You should use loose routing instead (using record_route() function), strict routing has been deprecated. If you really need strict routing that record_route_strict is the right function. Jan. On 05-05 15:46, Gulherme Dal Pizzol wrote: > Fellows, > > I started using the cvs version of ser instead of 0.8.10. But I'm > facing some doubts on strict routing vs. loose routing. > > In 0.8.10 I was using: > > addRecordRoute(); > > rewriteFromRoute(); > > Now in CVS version, by default strict routing is disabled, right? > > So, according to the rr module, I need to use record_route_strict, so > I compiled rr module with it. Now, I'm using > > record_route_strict() instead of addRecordRoute() and loose_route() > instead of > rewriteFromRoute(); > > Is this correct, or am I missing something? > > Thanks in advance, > > Guilherme. > > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

But there are some user agents that strip the lr parameter when generating Route header fields (i.e. Record-Route contained lr parameter but Route created by the user-agent didn't). If that is your case then you can use modparam("rr", "enable_full_route", 1) which will insert ;lr=on instead of just ;lr which worked for us.

The spec says that UAs should look if there is an lr parameter in URI and, IMHO, ;lr=on counts too because it is lr parameter, it just doesn't have empty body (but why would UAs look into the body when they just need to know if there is such parameter or not ?).