[Users] More Routing....

[Klaus Darilion]

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 at pernau.at]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:01 AM
> To: Douglas Garstang
> Cc: users at 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 at openser.org
>>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
> 
> 
>