On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo ibc@aliax.net wrote:
El Miércoles, 27 de Enero de 2010, Ovidiu Sas escribió:
It is the expected behavior. You can do that on failure_route (if you arm one). And if you do redirection based on 3xx, there's no need to terminated the rtp session and start a new one.
Good point. Terminating the rtpproxy session upon receipt of an error response would break the possibility of using serial forking (in failure_route) with the already opened rtpproxy session (anyhow I think it's better to invoke RtpProxy for each transaction serial/parallel fork).
However, IMHO it could be more user-friendly. In case the incoming transaction ends (when Kamailio replies [3456]XX to the UAC) then it makes no sense to leave the rtpproxy session open. Instead, rtpproxy module could terminate it (if it exists).
This is: I just mean the case in which Kamailio terminates the incoming transaction, but not the case in which a error response is got from downstream.
In most of this cases (if not all) the rtp session should not be opened. I like the way it is because I know exactly what's going on (no under the hood decisions). If a session is not closed, I know who to blame ;)
Regards, Ovidiu Sas