I would reiterate that in doing this, you may be boxing yourself into only supporting Q-value and $du as parameters, more or less.
If that fits your design parameters, cool. However, if additional future route options are a possibility, you'd be better off with a generic XAVP approach. It's more work up front, but will pay dividends if you decide you need another attribute, and then another, and another... -- Alex > On 10 Oct 2023, at 13:47, Barry Flanagan via sr-users > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 10 Oct 2023 18:12:10 Ben Kaufman via sr-users <[email protected]>: > >> Probably better to use an xavp with the ruri as the key. > > Yes, except ruri can be the same, with only the next hop proxy and q-value > changing :-( > > I will work on adding a Param to ruri before append_branch containing the > next hop and deal with it in failure_route. > > Thanks for all the replies! -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
