[SR-Users] Branch feedback behaviour

[Brandon Armstead]

Alex,

   I am not sure of your use case - but one common example I can think of
is a LRN service provided via 302 redirect.  What we do in this instance is
UAC -> Kamailio on this initial transaction we send the call directly to
the LRN service (not appending) any other branches and alter the original
state of ruri, we then set a special reply route that receives the LRN
information, caches it in a database so subsequent requests entirely avoid
this process for a period of time since its already cached.  We also set a
custom failure route that appends the new branch(s) upstream back to LCR /
PSTN using LRN information.  Now with this said - while the transaction is
in flight upstream, and a cancel from UAC is sent, simply flag the
transaction / response you receive back from upstream and drop it in the
reply.

Sincerely,
Brandon Armstead


On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>
wrote:

> Sounds like t_drop_replies() might be the ticket, but I wanted to check
> with the Best Practices Council.
>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov - Principal
> Evariste Systems LLC
> Tel: +1-678-954-0670
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
>
> Please be kind to the English language:
>
> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232906
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20140608/83c2d9eb/attachment.html>