On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/6/13 2:58 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: >> 2. Is there any harm in calling unforce_rtp_proxy() for Call-IDs rtpproxy >> doesn't know about? is there a 'better' best practice for handling CANCELs >> where it is unknown whether rtpproxy was engaged on the initial call >> (because it is an option, nat_uac_detect, etc)? > > No, it is no harm to call rtpproxy for non-existing sessions. You can even > skip it, there is a session timeout in rtpproxy -- I don't know default > value, but probably can be set via command line parameter -- so if you are > not short in ports, you can just leave rtpproxy alone with closed calls > without calling unforce command.
I seem to recall that the default is to close the session after 60 seconds of no RTP, but I'm not able to verify that right now. Corey _______________________________________________ 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
