Hello,

there is (still) some incoherence in dispatcher module regarding the
marking of a destination (e.g., to inactive state) and execution of
event route.

First, which I tried to address earlier today, was that ds_mark_dst()
was taking in consideration the value of ds_probing_threshold, which was
intended for keepalives, so the use of the function was not having any
effect (as documented) till it was used so many times as the parameter
value, probably not noticed so far because the default value for the
parameter is 1. Similar would be for setting destination active and the
value of ds_inactive_threshold.

Going on the same execution path as with setting the state of a
destination based on keepalives, the use of ds_mark_dst() results in
running the event routes, which I am not sure it is really expected. But
then, setting the state of a destination via RPC is not running event
routes and it was done immediately via reinitialising the state, without
any relation to ds_probing_threshold or ds_inactive_threshold.

So the questions would be:

1) the documented way is the expected one on admin-instructed state
update (via config functions or rpc), respectively do it immediately,
without considering ds_probing_threshold or ds_inactive_threshold? It is
like now in git master branch, but for many years the config functions
took in consideration the parameters.

2) shall event routes be executed only on SIP keepalives, or also on
admin-instructed state update (via config functions or rpc)? Or leave it
only for keepalives and config functions, like it is now, with updating
documentation to be clear.

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla (@ asipto.com)
twitter.com/miconda -- linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Consultancy, Training and Development Services -- asipto.com

_______________________________________________
Kamailio - Development Mailing List -- sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-dev-le...@lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the 
sender!

Reply via email to