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

[Nils Ohlmeier]

On Thursday 12 July 2007 09:26:37 Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> 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?

And how do you distinguish between in-dialog ACKs and out-of-dialog ACKs?
Note: they both have a To-tag and even worse if the original INVITE contained 
a pre-loaded Route header (for outbound proxy) the ACK has to contain this 
Route as well!

  Nils