Hi @doome , sorry for late handling on this patch.
I checked a bit the whole logic in handling the routing and IMHO, your change
is not correct.
The handle_sr() function is called from after_loose() when the next hop
(indicated by Route hdrs) is marked as strict router. Coming via the
after_loose() route, it means in RURI we have something else than our own IP
(most probably the IP of the end point).
Going back to handle_sr()....as next hop is strict , we need to place its IP in
RURI; and not to loose what we have in RURI (the end point), this must be added
as a last Route to the message.
You say this insertion (of current RURI as Route) should be do only if there is
another Route to follow, but this has no impact actually.
Let's take this example:
>RURI: end_point
>Route: myself;lr
>Route: proxy_sr
after going through after_loose(), the local Route is dropped and the next
route will point to "proxy_sr" which is strict route:
>RURI: end_point
>Route: proxy_sr
Now, the handle_sr() should re-arrange the message as the next hop is a strict
router. If you do it as per your patch, the RURI will not be saved into Route
any more, and only have the proxy_sr moved into RURI:
>RURI: proxy_sr
Which is wrong as you lost the last element in the routing set - the
"end_point" ; the next proxy will have no idea where to send the message
further.
Currently, without your patch, the result after handle_sr() is:
>RURI: proxy_sr
>Route: end_point
so proxy_sr will know that it has to fwd the request to end_point.
Am I missing anything on your patch ?
Regards,
Bogdan
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/pull/642#issuecomment-173560932
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
