On 9/21/10 6:23 PM, César Pinto Magán wrote:
I mean for a more detailed functionality and capabilities.
ok, understand. Probably we should open a wiki page for it. There are
one or two configs (perhaps pretty old now) in nathelper module to show
bridging mode.
Cheers,
Daniel
The bridge mode appears in
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/SER+example+outboundproxy and it is talked
about in this list (I had to search deep int the list records to find some
about). It is supposed to be used in a multihomed site, but it doesn't work
very fine for me (I had to put explicitly the IPs to be used)
César Pinto (2439)
+34 91 787 23 00 alhambra-eidos.es
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:mico...@gmail.com]
Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 18:03
Para: César Pinto Magán
CC: Alex Balashov; sr-users@lists.sip-router.org; sr-dev
Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] rtpproxy (k): removal of force_rtpproxy
Hi Cesar,
are you looking for rtpproxy protocol format or for a more detailed
functionality of rtpproxy capabilities (e.g., what means bridge mode)?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 9/21/10 5:52 PM, César Pinto Magán wrote:
Hello,
I'm actually using rtpproxy_offer/answer(), and it works fine for us. I had to
move from force_rtp_rpoxy() because it had several rare behaviors and the use
of the offer/answer model solved them. It is very simple to implement.
By the way, is there any type of documentation about rtpproxy and their
commands (i.e. how works the bridge/switch mode of the rtp). The rtpproxy wiki
says nothing about it.
César Pinto (2439)
+34 91 787 23 00 alhambra-eidos.es
-----Mensaje original-----
De: sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] En nombre de Alex Balashov
Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 17:32
Para: dan...@kamailio.org
CC: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org; sr-dev
Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] rtpproxy (k): removal of force_rtpproxy
On 09/21/2010 11:27 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
personally I haven't tested much those functions. Maybe is better for
now to mark it obsolete and add a warning message at startup (via
fixup), then remove it with next release, allowing some maturity tests
for new ones. I am saying that also because most of existing configs
out there are using this function and new people will look for it.
I agree.
All of our configs use force_rtp_proxy(), but I would be happy to
migrate them; however, I need some reasonable assurance that
rtpproxy_offer/answer() will actually work.
As can be seen from a number of previous threads on the list, I had to
call force_rtp_proxy() to get several common scenarios to work, even
though supposedly rtpproxy_offer/answer() are just wrappers (the code
would suggest that), and even though the 'nathelper' documentation
says that supposedly they will accept and use the same flags as those
listed for force_rtp_proxy() the same way. It has not been true in my
experience.
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
