[Serusers] [Serdev] loose_route behaviour, detecting single Route with myself

[Klaus Darilion]

Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:24:59 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
>>> On Thursday 12 July 2007 09:03:39 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>>> I totally agree with you, e.g:
>>>>
>>>> if (in_dialog()) { # probably an alias to has_totag()
>>> No. The To-tag is not enough as criteria for in-dialog. And unfortunately
>>> the presence of Route isn't as well.
>>>
>>> You can basically have these type of ACKs (ACKs illustrate the worst
>>> case): - the UAC uses an outbound proxy without a Route header
>>>   - the in-dialog ACK will have a To-tag and a Route header
>>>   - the out-of-dialog ACK will have a To-tag and no Route header
>>> - the UAC uses a Route header for its outbound proxy
>>>   - then in-dialog ACK will have a To-tag and a Route header (same as
>>> above) - the out-of-dialog ACK will have a To-tag and a Route header (and
>>> this is the problematic case!)
>> Is it really necessary to differ this cases in ser.cfg? I usually just
>> t_relay() the ACKs as tm module should know if this is a 2xx ACK or a
>> non-2xx ACK.
>>
>> If you need this information in ser.cfg, then having a function
>> t_is_ack_local() would be useful.
> 
> I did not claimed that I want this information to be available in the config.
> You suggested to export it via the return code.
> 
> But as I pointed out to Martin in the other mail, the point is that non-2xx 
> and 2xx ACKs should also be routed correctly in case of stateless forwarding. 
> So telling everybody just call t_relay() for all ACKs, it will take care of 
> it, is IMHO no acceptable option.

Is telling "If you do statefull forwarding just t_relay() the ACKs - 
both, in loose_route block and after loose_route block" an acceptable 
option?

klaus