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

[Nils Ohlmeier]

On Friday 13 July 2007 11:16:24 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:24:59 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >> Is it really necessary to differ this cases in ser.cfg? I usually just
> >> t_relay() the ACKs as tm module should know if this is a 2xx ACK or a
> >> non-2xx ACK.
> >>
> >> If you need this information in ser.cfg, then having a function
> >> t_is_ack_local() would be useful.
> >
> > I did not claimed that I want this information to be available in the
> > config. You suggested to export it via the return code.
> >
> > But as I pointed out to Martin in the other mail, the point is that
> > non-2xx and 2xx ACKs should also be routed correctly in case of stateless
> > forwarding. So telling everybody just call t_relay() for all ACKs, it
> > will take care of it, is IMHO no acceptable option.
>
> Is telling "If you do statefull forwarding just t_relay() the ACKs -
> both, in loose_route block and after loose_route block" an acceptable
> option?

Sure, for transaction statefull relaying there is no problem with this.
The problem is, that I'm also looking for a solution which works stateless (if 
you run a SER without tm - e.g. a stateless load balancer).

  Nils