Hugh Waite writes:
> As you and Daniel saw from the code, I replicated the behaviour of the
> 'failure-route' but with the current branch index. I didn't deliberately
> choose the behaviour of $ru etc. so I'm happy with it being classed as a bug
> if that's what's expected in this situation.
>
> Does $T_req($ru) give something different in this situation?
hugh,
i tried with
event_route [tm:branch-failure:contact] {
if (t_check_status("488")) {
xlog("L_INFO", "Got 488 response to <$T_req($ru)>\n");
and got:
Apr 16 19:22:52 siika /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[16206]: INFO: Got 488 response to
<<null>>
but even if i could get access to branch route $ru, it would not be
enough, since i would also need the branch flags, send socket, $du,
etc., so that after append_branch(); t_relay() would do the right thing.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
