Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-05-04 Thread Ovidiu Sas
No AVPs or vars. The encoding field separator can be specified via params: http://sip-router.org/docbook/sip-router/branch/master/modules_k/siputils/siputils.html#id2574949 Regards, Ovidiu Sas On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Uriel Rozenbaum wrote: > Thanks Guys, I'll be trying this. Do you know

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-05-04 Thread Klaus Darilion
I have no idea ... :-( Am 04.05.2010 15:41, schrieb Uriel Rozenbaum: Thanks Guys, I'll be trying this. Do you know if I can use AVP or vars as parameters for these functions? |encode_contact(encoding_prefix) ||decode_contact()| On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Klaus Darilion mailto:klaus.mailing

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-05-04 Thread Uriel Rozenbaum
Thanks Guys, I'll be trying this. Do you know if I can use AVP or vars as parameters for these functions? encode_contact(encoding_prefix) decode_contact() On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Klaus Darilion wrote: > The best would be to tell the providers that they should fix their systems. > > As a

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-05-03 Thread Klaus Darilion
The best would be to tell the providers that they should fix their systems. As a workaround you could try encode/decode contact functions: http://sip-router.org/docbook/sip-router/branch/master/modules_k/siputils/siputils.html#id2878034 IIRC these functions may cause strange results if you do ot

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-04-30 Thread Ovidiu Sas
It sucks to deal with broken SIP implementation on the carrier side. Here's one thing that you can try. You can encode the contact: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules_k/siputils.html#id2596873 Like this you will have the public IP in the Contact header. Then, for all subsequent in-di

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-04-30 Thread Uriel Rozenbaum
Daniel, Maybe my question is silly, but in this case the contact should remain intact? (I mean in bridge mode). I understand the destination UA should read the Record-route Headers and ignore the contents of the Contact Header, but I think this is not what´s happening. I'm not using force_socket

Re: [SR-Users] RTPproxy in bridge mode question

2010-04-30 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, it might not be the solution, because they should route based on Record-Route headers, not on Contact header. Anyhow changing the Contact will break the routing, so you will need to store somehow the original contact. You can do manual detection in case you do bridging, by checking th