Damian wrote:
>Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] fowardingrules.xml changes
>
>Scott Lawrence wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 10:48 -0400, Damian Krzeminski wrote:
>>> It might have been wrong but this is what it was.
>>
>> It was wrong... not sure how we got away with it so long, but the
>> issue is correct.
>>
>>
>
>
>OK let's change it then.
>Just to make sure that we all understand how it's going to
>change: this is what's going to look like after I commit this patch
>
>Single server case (no change here):
>single server a.example.com (10.0.0.1) with registrar running on 5070
>
>generated routeTo expression:
>
><10.0.0.1:5070;transport=tcp;x-sipx-routetoreg>
>
>
>HA Case:
>
>a.example.com (10.0.0.1) with registrar running on 5070
>b.example.com (10.0.0.2) with registrar running on 5070
>
>
>a's routeTo:
><rr.a.example.com;transport=tcp;x-sipx-routetoreg>
>
>b's routeTo:
><rr.b.example.com;transport=tcp;x-sipx-routetoreg>
>
>
>The patch only changes SUBSCRIBE and default routing.
>Registrations are still sent to 10.0.0.1:5070 (for 'a') and
>10.0.0.2:5070 (for 'b')
>
>
>Raymond: did I capture the changes correctly?
Yes. This is how it should look. Thanks
>Scott: makes sense?
>
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
