[Kamailio-Users] Should really 't_on_branch' remain in serial forking?

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

Hi, imagine this simple case:

--------------------------
route {
	t_on_branch("1");
	t_on_failure("2");

	xlog("We are in 'route'");
	t_relay("1.1.1.1");
}

branch_route[1] {
	xlog("We are in 'branch_route[1]'");
	# do something....
}

failure_route[2] {
	xlog("We are in 'failure_route[2]'");
	append_branch();
	t_relay("2.2.2.2");
}
---------------------------


In case an error occurs when forwarding the request to 1.1.1.1 this would be 
the screen log output:

   We are in 'route'
   We are in 'branch_route[1]'
   We are in 'failure_route[2]'
   We are in 'branch_route[1]'

This is: branch_route[1] will also be runned **again** after the failure route 
since it was loaded in the first forward attemp.

I really don't know if this is intuitive or not. The only way to "dissable" 
branch_route[1] in the failure route is by adding:

-------------------
failure_route[2] {
	t_on_branch("2");  # <--- Dissable t_on_branch("1")

	xlog("We are in 'failure_route[2]'");
	append_branch();
	t_relay("2.2.2.2");
}

branch_route[2] {
	xlog("We are in 'branch_route[2]'");
	# Nothing to do here.
	# This route is neccesary to dissable t_on_branch("1")
}
------------------

This would show:

   We are in 'route'
   We are in 'branch_route[1]'
   We are in 'failure_route[2]'
   We are in 'branch_route[2]'


What about if "t_on_branch" wouldn't remain loaded after a failure route or 
serial forking? wouldn't be more intuitive to re-enable it explicitely when 
required?


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo