[SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 21:38:52 CEST 2010



On 10/25/10 6:35 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda at gmail.com>:
>> why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
> Sorry, just a typo in the mail :)
>
>
>>> , so the bflag will be set
>>> for all the branches that could be generated  for this incoming
>>> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
>>> failure_route, am I right?
>>> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
>>> bflags.
>>>
>>> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
>>> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
>>> will be set.
>>>
>>> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
>>> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
>>> have the bflag set, am I right?
>> never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you do
>> it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
> It's more curiosity than need. But anyhow I'm 90% sure that if you set
> a bflag in route then it will be set for all the branches generated
> during loockup(location).

Looked in the code and I saw that only first branch inherits the branch 
flags from main route, the other takes only the value from location records.

Cheers,
Daniel

>   Not sure what happens in case of serial
> forking using append_branch() in failure_route...
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com




More information about the sr-users mailing list