[Users] OpenSER and transport selection (SRV and NAPTR)

[Joachim Fabini]

Hi Bogdan, 

> I meant t_reply() will keep its behaviour as looking into URI for the 
> destination - but it will incorporate the NAPTR lookup.

Great - this answers my question.


> to response also to on earlier question, regarding the timing 
> -  I say 3  months are more than enough ;).

Excellent.

Many thanks for your help (and patience ;)
--Joachim



> Joachim Fabini wrote:
> 
> >Hi Bogdan,
> >
> >  
> >
> >>indeed, there was a misunderstanding :) .t_relay() with no 
> >>param will be kept with the current functionality. 
> >>Or you suggest to be able to specify only a different proto 
> >>or port from the RURI?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I did not yet find the primitive which is supposed to 
> >statefully relay and do the following:
> >1. NAPTR query on the transport to use PLUS
> >2. _exactly_ what t_relay() does now for the 
> >   transport returned by the NAPTR query.
> >
> >You say that t_relay() is kept with the current functionality.
> >Does this mean no NAPTR, or will t_relay() be extended to use 
> >NAPTR before SRV/A query? If the latter then everything is OK.
> >
> >Otherwise we have the alternatives:
> >
> >t_relay()    -> Stateful relaying according to destination 
> >                address using the incoming transport (no NAPTR).
> >t_relay_to() -> Stateful relaying to a specific host (you said
> >                that <host> is mandatory here) using NAPTR to 
> >                determine the transport.
> >
> >
> >To summarize:
> >My point is that none of these two primitives covers the case 
> >when the message is to be relayed to the next hop based only
> >on the destination address _and_ using the transport selected 
> >by the destination proxy (determined via NAPTR query).
> >
> >Except if either a) t_relay() does NAPTR or b) the host
> >parameter in t_relay_to() is optional.
> >
> >--Joachim
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>