[Serusers] [Serdev] loose_route behaviour, detecting single?Route with myself

[Martin Hoffmann]

Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 21:57:15 Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> > In most cases this is what you want, because the presence of Routes
> > indicates an in-dialog message which you want to treat differently (In
> > practice, most UAs just forward the message to the outgoing proxy
> > without adding a Route header, which is perfectly legal as well). The
> > proper test for this, of course, is to check for the presence of a To
> > tag. But it seems to be common to all SER configs I have seen to misuse
> > loose_route() in this way.
> 
> The realization of the fact that the presence or absence of To-tag is not 
> enough to decide if a request belongs to a dialog or not. The big exception 
> here is the ACK for negative replies. It has a To-tag but a dialog was not 
> established.

That is a non-issue. This ACK needs special treatment anyways -- it is
to be consumed by tm.

Is there any argument against putting a

   if (method == "ACK") {
      t_relay();
      drop();
   }

somewhere way up in your config?

Regards,
Martin