Richard Fuchs wrote
On 29/05/15 11:16 AM, Vasiliy Ganchev wrote:
On May 29, 2015; 3:19pm, Richard Fuchs wrote:
A good way to start debugging this is to run rtpengine with log-level 7 and post the full log for such a call.
Hi Richard! Thanks for answer! Call log written on WS_Kamailio, rtpengine with log-level 7 Call from UA_WS 272 calling to UA_SIP 271 attached. 200OK_without_DTLS_fingerprint_log_for_list.txt <http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/file/n138286/200OK_without_DTLS_fing...;
Looks like you're making an RTP/SAVPF offer to a client that speaks RTP/AVPF only, and you're neglecting to instruct rtpengine to do any translation between the two. The solution is to include the "RTP/AVPF" flag in the offer.
There's also a stray "delete" in there, which you may want to eliminate. It's harmless as it is, but it probably shouldn't be there.
Cheers
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@.sip-router
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hi Richard! Thank you for your reply and suggested solution. You was right, in 200 OK was set RTP/AVPF (and in offer RTP/SAVPF) and I did nothing with this mismatch. Now, playing around with flags for RTPengine, I have one questions for such case: Browser send INVITE with RTP/SAVPF, RTPengine send forward to client with RTP/AVPF When comes 200 OK with RTP/AVPF RTPengine change it to RTP/SAVPF and forward to browser. In this case I got in browser log:
setRemoteDescription() | error: +5ms Failed to set remote answer sdp: Offer and answer descriptions m-lines are not matching. Rejecting answer.
Does this configuration has to work, or on the whole path has to be only one profile RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF? Thanks in advance! Cheers
-- View this message in context: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/RTPengine-Kamailio-200-OK-without-DT... Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.