[Users] ENUM behaviour issue
klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
Wed Aug 10 20:41:25 CEST 2005
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi there,
> so, without messing with the order/priority of the records, we can go
> for the following options:
> 1) fork or not - use only first record (according to priority) or use
> all of them;
> 2) if fork - what kind of fork: serial or parallel (both respecting
> the priorities)
I prefer the second one. the highest prior URI should go into the
current branch, and the other URIs should go into AVPs ordered by
priority (like load_contacts from lcr module).
Then, serial forking can be implemented in the routing logic.
> does everybody agree with this frame?
> Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Juha Heinanen wrote:
>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>>> > Maybe you can shed some light regarding the priority, what is it
>>> good > for in enum case, how it should be used? In this way, can be
>>> decided if > worth to implement these features. I have other things
>>> in my todo list > in the next days, so I do not want to waste time
>>> at all.
>>> the owner of enum record may have decided that he wants to be first
>>> contacted at a given uri and, if that fails, at another one, or more
>>> than one uris simultaneously, etc. for that purpose enum NAPTR record
>>> contains two fields, order and preference:
>>> in my opinion, sip proxy should obey the wish of the enum record owner
>>> as specified by these two fields. it is the same as with q values of
>>> registered contacts. proxy should not mess around with them.
>> I agree. Thus, we need serial forking (like in LCR module with AVPs),
>> not parallel forking (current behaviour).
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at openser.org
More information about the sr-users