[Serusers] Some questions on "loose_route"

[Jiri Kuthan]

At 06:19 PM 1/2/2004, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Friday 02 January 2004 14:46, Franz Edler wrote:
>> from various examples in the SER admin_guide and my own SIP knowledge-base
>> I conclude, that the action "loose-route()" is responsible for correct
>> routing of those requests, that are not destined to the proxy (host of
>> Request-URI is not the proxy) and that have a proper Route-header
>> indicating
>> "loose-routing".
>>
>> As such the action "loose_route()" should be sufficient to modify the
>> Request in such a way, that the following action "t-relay()" finishes
>> processing of the request. Therefore the action short sequence
>>       ... if (loose_route()) { t_relay(); break; };
>> does all, what is necessary for loose routing of those requests.
>>
>> My problem is, that I could not produce a condition, where "loose_route()"
>> evaluates to true, so that the action block { t_relay(); break; } is
>> executed. I expect, that in a simple call-scenario with one record-routing
>> SIP proxy (SER) the routing of the ACK- and the BYE-method should trigger
>> the above mentioned "loose_route()" action. But unfortunately it does not.
>> Why?
>
>Because you made the wrong assumption: loose_route() will directly 
>deliver/forward the request if it contains a valid route header. If i'm not 
>wrong the t_relay() in the if clause is only for the case loose_route fails 
>e.g. because of a broken route header.

not really. The consruct Franz mentioned is correct. his problems must live
somehwere else.

-jiri