Hi all,
I was wondering if someone can help me understand how the ICE parameter works in the rtpengine module works.
So basically our client does an ICE candidate lookup and grabs a list of them and applies it to the INVITE that gets sent to the Kamailio. The list looks like this:
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456057+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3040609428 1 udp 2122197247 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 59828 typ host generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456081+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:1681997092 1 udp 2122129151 192.168.1.66 59829 typ host generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456131+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:4223662180 1 tcp 1518217471 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456155+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:717406676 1 tcp 1518149375 192.168.1.66 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456180+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2130547417 1 udp 8199935 206.81.191.27 61165 typ relay raddr 85.247.0.121 rport 53091 generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10
In the rtpengine_offer, I have this:
rtpengine_offer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin external internal");
What i am trying to do is to tell the freeswitch endpoint to use rtpengine as ICE candidate and I see in the SDP this is happening:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Btw..206.81.191.52 is a separate AWS instance running rtpengine binary.
On the rtpengine_answer, I tell the remote client side the same thing..use rtpengine as your ICE candidate:
rtpengine_answer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin internal external");
and this is snippet from 200 OK:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Question:
Why does the rtpengine logs still show that it's trying to use 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 as RTP candidate in this scenario?
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
I thought ICE=force will handle such adjustments so that all rtp is handled by the rtpengine to our client and bypass the STUN server?
Thanks.
On 03/12/2020 13.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if someone can help me understand how the ICE parameter works in the rtpengine module works.
So basically our client does an ICE candidate lookup and grabs a list of them and applies it to the INVITE that gets sent to the Kamailio. The list looks like this:
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456057+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3040609428 1 udp 2122197247 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 59828 typ host generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456081+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:1681997092 1 udp 2122129151 192.168.1.66 59829 typ host generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456131+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:4223662180 1 tcp 1518217471 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456155+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:717406676 1 tcp 1518149375 192.168.1.66 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456180+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2130547417 1 udp 8199935 206.81.191.27 61165 typ relay raddr 85.247.0.121 rport 53091 generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10
In the rtpengine_offer, I have this:
rtpengine_offer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin external internal");
What i am trying to do is to tell the freeswitch endpoint to use rtpengine as ICE candidate and I see in the SDP this is happening:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Btw..206.81.191.52 is a separate AWS instance running rtpengine binary.
On the rtpengine_answer, I tell the remote client side the same thing..use rtpengine as your ICE candidate:
rtpengine_answer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin internal external");
and this is snippet from 200 OK:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Question:
Why does the rtpengine logs still show that it's trying to use 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 as RTP candidate in this scenario?
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
I thought ICE=force will handle such adjustments so that all rtp is handled by the rtpengine to our client and bypass the STUN server?
Isn't that what's happening? Rtpengine receives media from one peer and forwards it to one of the ICE candidates (presumably the primary one that was negotiated) of the other peer. Or am I misunderstanding what you posted?
Cheers
Hello 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 is a local candidate sent in the offer from the client ICE=force just says rtpengine: "when you will resend this offer to the receiver, remove all candidates sent by sender and put yourself as the only candidate" But rtpengine still has to follow the ICE check for the received candidates as in that case rtpengine is the receiver and it can't just not check local candidates. That is why you facing this behaviour from the rtpengine, which is totally correct.
In other terms Sender -----------> rtpengine : rtpengine must follow ice procedure and check availability of these local candidates to establish connection between Sender and rtpengine rtpengine ---------> Receiver: rtpengine pretends to be a Sender for the ICE agent of the receiver. but in this term, RTPengine will be the only candidate for this part of the call, so this part is establishing a connection between rtpengine and Receiver
чт, 3 дек. 2020 г. в 23:40, Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com:
On 03/12/2020 13.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if someone can help me understand how the ICE parameter works in the rtpengine module works.
So basically our client does an ICE candidate lookup and grabs a list of them and applies it to the INVITE that gets sent to the Kamailio. The list looks like this:
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456057+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3040609428 1 udp 2122197247 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 59828 typ host generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456081+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:1681997092 1 udp 2122129151 192.168.1.66 59829 typ host generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456131+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:4223662180 1 tcp 1518217471 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456155+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:717406676 1 tcp 1518149375 192.168.1.66 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456180+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2130547417 1 udp 8199935 206.81.191.27 61165 typ relay raddr 85.247.0.121 rport 53091 generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10
In the rtpengine_offer, I have this:
rtpengine_offer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin external internal");
What i am trying to do is to tell the freeswitch endpoint to use rtpengine as ICE candidate and I see in the SDP this is happening:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Btw..206.81.191.52 is a separate AWS instance running rtpengine binary.
On the rtpengine_answer, I tell the remote client side the same thing..use rtpengine as your ICE candidate:
rtpengine_answer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin internal external");
and this is snippet from 200 OK:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Question:
Why does the rtpengine logs still show that it's trying to use 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 as RTP candidate in this scenario?
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
I thought ICE=force will handle such adjustments so that all rtp is handled by the rtpengine to our client and bypass the STUN server?
Isn't that what's happening? Rtpengine receives media from one peer and forwards it to one of the ICE candidates (presumably the primary one that was negotiated) of the other peer. Or am I misunderstanding what you posted?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
So for Yuriy's comment:
I did issue ICE=force parameter but, as you can see my paste, it's still sending RTP sequence packets to the ICE candidate, which is not what I want to do.
Richard,
So our current setup is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP client -> freeswitch
What I want to accomplish is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP (bypass ICE) client -> rtpengine -> freeswitch
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:34 AM Yuriy Gorlichenko ovoshlook@gmail.com wrote:
Hello 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 is a local candidate sent in the offer from the client ICE=force just says rtpengine: "when you will resend this offer to the receiver, remove all candidates sent by sender and put yourself as the only candidate" But rtpengine still has to follow the ICE check for the received candidates as in that case rtpengine is the receiver and it can't just not check local candidates. That is why you facing this behaviour from the rtpengine, which is totally correct.
In other terms Sender -----------> rtpengine : rtpengine must follow ice procedure and check availability of these local candidates to establish connection between Sender and rtpengine rtpengine ---------> Receiver: rtpengine pretends to be a Sender for the ICE agent of the receiver. but in this term, RTPengine will be the only candidate for this part of the call, so this part is establishing a connection between rtpengine and Receiver
чт, 3 дек. 2020 г. в 23:40, Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com:
On 03/12/2020 13.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if someone can help me understand how the ICE parameter works in the rtpengine module works.
So basically our client does an ICE candidate lookup and grabs a list of them and applies it to the INVITE that gets sent to the Kamailio. The list looks like this:
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456057+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3040609428 1 udp 2122197247 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 59828 typ host generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456081+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:1681997092 1 udp 2122129151 192.168.1.66 59829 typ host generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456131+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:4223662180 1 tcp 1518217471 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456155+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:717406676 1 tcp 1518149375 192.168.1.66 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456180+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2130547417 1 udp 8199935 206.81.191.27 61165 typ relay raddr 85.247.0.121 rport 53091 generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10
In the rtpengine_offer, I have this:
rtpengine_offer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin external internal");
What i am trying to do is to tell the freeswitch endpoint to use rtpengine as ICE candidate and I see in the SDP this is happening:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Btw..206.81.191.52 is a separate AWS instance running rtpengine binary.
On the rtpengine_answer, I tell the remote client side the same thing..use rtpengine as your ICE candidate:
rtpengine_answer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin internal external");
and this is snippet from 200 OK:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Question:
Why does the rtpengine logs still show that it's trying to use 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 as RTP candidate in this scenario?
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
I thought ICE=force will handle such adjustments so that all rtp is handled by the rtpengine to our client and bypass the STUN server?
Isn't that what's happening? Rtpengine receives media from one peer and forwards it to one of the ICE candidates (presumably the primary one that was negotiated) of the other peer. Or am I misunderstanding what you posted?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Actually Yuriy's..sorry...I see what you are saying.
So my question should be, this means I don't have a choice but to use the ICE candidate between client and kamailio?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:11 AM Andrew Chen achen@fuze.com wrote:
So for Yuriy's comment:
I did issue ICE=force parameter but, as you can see my paste, it's still sending RTP sequence packets to the ICE candidate, which is not what I want to do.
Richard,
So our current setup is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP client -> freeswitch
What I want to accomplish is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP (bypass ICE) client -> rtpengine -> freeswitch
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:34 AM Yuriy Gorlichenko ovoshlook@gmail.com wrote:
Hello 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 is a local candidate sent in the offer from the client ICE=force just says rtpengine: "when you will resend this offer to the receiver, remove all candidates sent by sender and put yourself as the only candidate" But rtpengine still has to follow the ICE check for the received candidates as in that case rtpengine is the receiver and it can't just not check local candidates. That is why you facing this behaviour from the rtpengine, which is totally correct.
In other terms Sender -----------> rtpengine : rtpengine must follow ice procedure and check availability of these local candidates to establish connection between Sender and rtpengine rtpengine ---------> Receiver: rtpengine pretends to be a Sender for the ICE agent of the receiver. but in this term, RTPengine will be the only candidate for this part of the call, so this part is establishing a connection between rtpengine and Receiver
чт, 3 дек. 2020 г. в 23:40, Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com:
On 03/12/2020 13.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if someone can help me understand how the ICE parameter works in the rtpengine module works.
So basically our client does an ICE candidate lookup and grabs a list of them and applies it to the INVITE that gets sent to the Kamailio. The list looks like this:
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456057+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3040609428 1 udp 2122197247 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 59828 typ host generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456081+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:1681997092 1 udp 2122129151 192.168.1.66 59829 typ host generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456106+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2274611867 1 tcp 1518283007 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456131+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:4223662180 1 tcp 1518217471 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:d979:bf75:dbc0:69f 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 3 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456155+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:717406676 1 tcp 1518149375 192.168.1.66 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost 10 2020-12-03T18:05:46.456180+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:2130547417 1 udp 8199935 206.81.191.27 61165 typ relay raddr 85.247.0.121 rport 53091 generation 0 network-id 1 network-cost
10
In the rtpengine_offer, I have this:
rtpengine_offer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin external internal");
What i am trying to do is to tell the freeswitch endpoint to use rtpengine as ICE candidate and I see in the SDP this is happening:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Btw..206.81.191.52 is a separate AWS instance running rtpengine binary.
On the rtpengine_answer, I tell the remote client side the same thing..use rtpengine as your ICE candidate:
rtpengine_answer("ICE=force DTLS=passive replace-session-connection replace-origin internal external");
and this is snippet from 200 OK:
a=candidate:6296910676 1 udp 659136 206.81.191.52 52766 typ host generation 0
Question:
Why does the rtpengine logs still show that it's trying to use 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 as RTP candidate in this
scenario?
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
I thought ICE=force will handle such adjustments so that all rtp is handled by the rtpengine to our client and bypass the STUN server?
Isn't that what's happening? Rtpengine receives media from one peer and forwards it to one of the ICE candidates (presumably the primary one that was negotiated) of the other peer. Or am I misunderstanding what you posted?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Andy Chen Sr. Telephony Lead Engineer 415 516 5535 (M) achen@ achen@thinkingphones.comfuze.com
On 04/12/2020 09.11, Andrew Chen wrote:
So for Yuriy's comment:
I did issue ICE=force parameter but, as you can see my paste, it's still sending RTP sequence packets to the ICE candidate, which is not what I want to do.
Richard,
So our current setup is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP client -> freeswitch
What I want to accomplish is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP (bypass ICE) client -> rtpengine -> freeswitch
I still don't understand. What does "bypass ICE" mean?
If you see rtpengine forwarding media packets as per the log you posted, what makes you think that media is not going through rtpengine?
Cheers
Hey Richard,
So it is true rtpengine is handling rtp between kamailio and receiver (freeswitch). I'm trying to understand if there is a way to not forward rtp to any of the ICE candidates in the original INVITE request from the client side. In other words, have the client rtp forward directly to the rtpengine and not any of the STUN servers (or ICE candidates). i honestly thought putting ICE=force in the rtpengine_answer would help in this case...but I don't see this part working.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:20 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 09.11, Andrew Chen wrote:
So for Yuriy's comment:
I did issue ICE=force parameter but, as you can see my paste, it's still sending RTP sequence packets to the ICE candidate, which is not what I want to do.
Richard,
So our current setup is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP client -> freeswitch
What I want to accomplish is this:
SIP client -> kamailio -> freeswitch RTP (bypass ICE) client -> rtpengine -> freeswitch
I still don't understand. What does "bypass ICE" mean?
If you see rtpengine forwarding media packets as per the log you posted, what makes you think that media is not going through rtpengine?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 09.24, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hey Richard,
So it is true rtpengine is handling rtp between kamailio and receiver (freeswitch). I'm trying to understand if there is a way to not forward rtp to any of the ICE candidates in the original INVITE request from the client side. In other words, have the client rtp forward directly to the rtpengine and not any of the STUN servers (or ICE candidates). i honestly thought putting ICE=force in the rtpengine_answer would help in this case...but I don't see this part working.
But that is what's happening, isn't it? What other media would rtpengine be sending to the client if not the media received from the other client? So your A client is sending to rtpengine, and rtpengine is forwarding that to B, while your B client is also sending to rtpengine, which then forwards it to A. Where do you not see that working?
Cheers
Hey Richard,
So that's what I thought too until I saw this in rtpengine logs for one of my test calls:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
unless I misunderstood what this line means.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:34 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 09.24, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hey Richard,
So it is true rtpengine is handling rtp between kamailio and receiver (freeswitch). I'm trying to understand if there is a way to not forward rtp to any of the ICE candidates in the original INVITE request from the client side. In other words, have the client rtp forward directly to the rtpengine and not any of the STUN servers (or ICE candidates). i honestly thought putting ICE=force in the rtpengine_answer would help in this case...but I don't see this part working.
But that is what's happening, isn't it? What other media would rtpengine be sending to the client if not the media received from the other client? So your A client is sending to rtpengine, and rtpengine is forwarding that to B, while your B client is also sending to rtpengine, which then forwards it to A. Where do you not see that working?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 09.40, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hey Richard,
So that's what I thought too until I saw this in rtpengine logs for one of my test calls:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
unless I misunderstood what this line means.
I think you did. It means rtpengine has received a media packet from one side and has forwarded it to the other side. Of course it's one of the ICE candidates from the SDP because that's where the peer said it wants to receive the media from rtpengine.
Cheers
So my next question would be:
My 200 OK back to the client should have rtpengine as the only ICE candidate. Shouldn't it use that one instead?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:18 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 09.40, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hey Richard,
So that's what I thought too until I saw this in rtpengine logs for one of my test calls:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
unless I misunderstood what this line means.
I think you did. It means rtpengine has received a media packet from one side and has forwarded it to the other side. Of course it's one of the ICE candidates from the SDP because that's where the peer said it wants to receive the media from rtpengine.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
If that's the case then I don't know why this line doesn't show the ipv6 address of the client:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 10.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
So my next question would be:
My 200 OK back to the client should have rtpengine as the only ICE candidate. Shouldn't it use that one instead?
Yes it should. And it probably does.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 11.31, Andrew Chen wrote:
If that's the case then I don't know why this line doesn't show the ipv6 address of the client:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
It doesn't?
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10
What is this then?
Cheers
oh...that's the IPv6 address of the STUN server, not the ipv6 of the rtpengine instance.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 11.31, Andrew Chen wrote:
If that's the case then I don't know why this line doesn't show the ipv6 address of the client:
Dec 3 18:05:47 ashmainrtpe42 rtpengine[8505]: DEBUG: [ep1sbnkk9tikhg4kpmot]: Forward to sink endpoint: 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71:59827 (RTP seq 25423 TS 0)
It doesn't?
2020-12-03T18:05:46.456030+00:00 ashmainkama51 kamailio[22147]: a=candidate:3373280875 1 udp 2122262783 2001:8a0:78fc:7000:e1d7:e93:3c50:ee71 59827 typ host generation 0 network-id 2 network-cost 10
What is this then?
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 11.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
oh...that's the IPv6 address of the STUN server, not the ipv6 of the rtpengine instance.
Ok. From rtpengine's point of view, this is one of the client's IP addresses. The ICE candidate in the SDP is the client telling rtpengine: This is one of my own addresses (`typ host`) and I can receive media here. It is also listed (by the client who has sent the SDP) as the highest priority candidate, and this is why it's (presumably) negotiated as the candidate to use. This is why rtpengine is sending media there.
Cheers
So from a SIP point of view, the 200 OK should of sent the final negotiation of SDP once the client ACK's it right?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 11.39, Andrew Chen wrote:
oh...that's the IPv6 address of the STUN server, not the ipv6 of the rtpengine instance.
Ok. From rtpengine's point of view, this is one of the client's IP addresses. The ICE candidate in the SDP is the client telling rtpengine: This is one of my own addresses (`typ host`) and I can receive media here. It is also listed (by the client who has sent the SDP) as the highest priority candidate, and this is why it's (presumably) negotiated as the candidate to use. This is why rtpengine is sending media there.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 13.10, Andrew Chen wrote:
So from a SIP point of view, the 200 OK should of sent the final negotiation of SDP once the client ACK's it right?
The requirement to send an updated offer once ICE has completed with the final negotiated candidates existed in the original ICE RFC, but I believe it has been removed in the newer ICE RFC (I'm not 100% sure about that though). For rtpengine that requirement certainly doesn't exist and it's happy to negotiate and conclude ICE without a final updated offer. Also rtpengine itself cannot trigger such an updated offer since it's not directly in the SIP path, so that would have to be left up to the clients. So in short, a single offer/answer exchange is enough to get ICE started and it can complete negotiation out of band without further signalling.
Cheers
Hmm..that's interesting. You would guess that the rtpengine binary process shouldn't start connecting ICE candidates once the SIP part is fully negotiated, which should trigger the rtpengine module on the Kamailio to tell rtpengine binary.."ok..you can start associating now..."
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:30 PM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 13.10, Andrew Chen wrote:
So from a SIP point of view, the 200 OK should of sent the final negotiation of SDP once the client ACK's it right?
The requirement to send an updated offer once ICE has completed with the final negotiated candidates existed in the original ICE RFC, but I believe it has been removed in the newer ICE RFC (I'm not 100% sure about that though). For rtpengine that requirement certainly doesn't exist and it's happy to negotiate and conclude ICE without a final updated offer. Also rtpengine itself cannot trigger such an updated offer since it's not directly in the SIP path, so that would have to be left up to the clients. So in short, a single offer/answer exchange is enough to get ICE started and it can complete negotiation out of band without further signalling.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 13.36, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hmm..that's interesting. You would guess that the rtpengine binary process shouldn't start connecting ICE candidates once the SIP part is fully negotiated, which should trigger the rtpengine module on the Kamailio to tell rtpengine binary.."ok..you can start associating now..."
Not really. Why would you think that? ICE and SIP are really largely unrelated, and ICE processing starts as soon as possible so that media can flow as soon as possible. Any delay in ICE processing leads to delays in establishing the call or the media flows. (Trickle ICE exists partly for that reason.) In particular early media would break if ICE had to wait for SIP to finish.
Cheers
Sure...I understand ICE has its own setup workflow than SIP but it's also important that rtpengine uses the rtp path that's negotiated in the SIP or else it can cause confusion (to those who don't understand ICE very well like me).
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:47 PM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 13.36, Andrew Chen wrote:
Hmm..that's interesting. You would guess that the rtpengine binary process shouldn't start connecting ICE candidates once the SIP part is fully negotiated, which should trigger the rtpengine module on the Kamailio to tell rtpengine binary.."ok..you can start associating now..."
Not really. Why would you think that? ICE and SIP are really largely unrelated, and ICE processing starts as soon as possible so that media can flow as soon as possible. Any delay in ICE processing leads to delays in establishing the call or the media flows. (Trickle ICE exists partly for that reason.) In particular early media would break if ICE had to wait for SIP to finish.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On 04/12/2020 14.04, Andrew Chen wrote:
Sure...I understand ICE has its own setup workflow than SIP but it's also important that rtpengine uses the rtp path that's negotiated in the SIP or else it can cause confusion (to those who don't understand ICE very well like me).
There is no RTP path negotiated through SIP. There is only a number of possible paths, which are compiled from the list of candidates that each side advertises. ICE then checks which paths work, and then finally chooses the one with the highest priority.
The only way to have a single media path that is negotiated through SIP is if you don't use ICE.
Cheers
Ok..that's interesting to know. Thanks for your input Richard. This helps a lot.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:18 PM Richard Fuchs rfuchs@sipwise.com wrote:
On 04/12/2020 14.04, Andrew Chen wrote:
Sure...I understand ICE has its own setup workflow than SIP but it's also important that rtpengine uses the rtp path that's negotiated in the SIP or else it can cause confusion (to those who don't understand ICE very well like me).
There is no RTP path negotiated through SIP. There is only a number of possible paths, which are compiled from the list of candidates that each side advertises. ICE then checks which paths work, and then finally chooses the one with the highest priority.
The only way to have a single media path that is negotiated through SIP is if you don't use ICE.
Cheers
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-
Andrew Chen -
Richard Fuchs -
Yuriy Gorlichenko