19 Dec
2014
19 Dec
'14
10:02 a.m.
Richard Fuchs writes:
Yes I understand, but 1) the mechanism of using
0.0.0.0 to put a call on
hold must remain operational and intact for those clients which use it,
and 2) if the offering client sends 0.0.0.0 in the SDP, then the
rewritten SDP should also contain 0.0.0.0, no matter what the purpose
behind it is.
So with current implementation of rtpengine there is no hope if Firefox
webrtc client needs rtpengine services?
If so, would it be possible have a new flag that tells rtpengine to
replace also 0.0.0.0 address if there is no sendonly attribute in sdp?
-- Juha