24 Apr
2023
24 Apr
'23
4:17 p.m.
On 24.04.23 10:29, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
rtpengine_manage() should be used in failure_route only when knowing
that the call is failing completely. In failure route it should not be
used for the purpose of an offer, that is for branch_route usage. The
rtpengine offer()/answer()/delete() functions are there to use when
specific needs pop up.
Of course, then config conditions can be used to exclude cases as needed.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference - June 5-7, 2023 - www.kamailioworld.com
On 24 Apr 2023, at 10:02, Alex Balashov
<abalashov(a)evaristesys.com> wrote:
Agree that the reinvite case is interesting, exactly because of the possible
fallback to original state.
I guess there are a number of possible codes, like a timeout (408) or system problem
(5xx) in addition to the “correct” code 488 where fallback could happen.
On Apr 24, 2023, at 2:46 AM, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello,
actually, this also documented in the kamailio modules readme:
https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.5.x/modules/rtpengine.html#rtpengine.f.…
"- If reply to INVITE with code >= 300 do rtpengine_delete()"
Yeah, it is.
But what I think Benoît was really getting at is a question not addressed by the
documentation or the source code: do I really want to 'delete' for _any_ >= 300
reply code, or are there corner cases, like 488 for a reinvite (where the standards say
the call must continue according to previous parameters if a reinvite fails)? And if so,
are there any others, or is 488 truly it?