26 Jul
2004
26 Jul
'04
12:28 p.m.
Hi,
How does rtpproxy handle call hold? Normally when the
call is put on hold, it doesn't have any rtp packets
between two end UA. Would it cause rtpproxy to tear
down the connection after timeout (default 60s)?
Thanks,
Richard
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26 Jul
26 Jul
6:22 p.m.
On Jul 26, 2004 at 03:28, Richard <mypop3mail(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
How does rtpproxy handle call hold? Normally when the
call is put on hold, it doesn't have any rtp packets
between two end UA. Would it cause rtpproxy to tear
down the connection after timeout (default 60s)?
Yes, but on the other hand when you exit the on hold state the UA sends
a re-INVITE. So if you properly handle re-INVITEs for natted calls, the
re-INVITE will be caught by nathelper, the sdp re-written and the
rtpproxy binding re-created (or updated if it already exists).
Andrei
6:29 p.m.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jul 26, 2004 at 03:28, Richard
<mypop3mail(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
actually when you enter on hold state, a re-INVITE with 0.0.0.0 addr in
SDP is sent. So if catch also this one, you can tear down the rtp
session without waiting for timeout. At the second re-Invite (when exit
from on hold) you have to create a new rtp session
bogdan
Hi,
How does rtpproxy handle call hold? Normally when the
call is put on hold, it doesn't have any rtp packets
between two end UA. Would it cause rtpproxy to tear
down the connection after timeout (default 60s)?
Yes, but on the other hand when you exit the on hold state the UA sends
a re-INVITE. So if you properly handle re-INVITEs for natted calls, the
re-INVITE will be caught by nathelper, the sdp re-written and the
rtpproxy binding re-created (or updated if it already exists).
Andrei
31 Jul
31 Jul
12:12 p.m.
Bogdan-Andrei IANCU wrote:
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
AFAIK, using 0.0.0.0 in SDP for "hold" is depreciated. You should use
a=inactive resp. a=sendonly or a=recvonly.
See RFC 3264, sec. 8.4 for details.
regards,
klaus
On Jul 26, 2004 at 03:28, Richard
<mypop3mail(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
actually when you enter on hold state, a re-INVITE with 0.0.0.0 addr in
SDP is sent. So if catch also this one, you can tear down the rtp
session without waiting for timeout. At the second re-Invite (when exit
from on hold) you have to create a new rtp session Hi,
How does rtpproxy handle call hold? Normally when the
call is put on hold, it doesn't have any rtp packets
between two end UA. Would it cause rtpproxy to tear
down the connection after timeout (default 60s)?
Yes, but on the other hand when you exit the on hold state the UA sends
a re-INVITE. So if you properly handle re-INVITEs for natted calls, the
re-INVITE will be caught by nathelper, the sdp re-written and the
rtpproxy binding re-created (or updated if it already exists).
Andrei
1 Aug
1 Aug
11:34 p.m.
At 12:12 PM 7/31/2004, Klaus Darilion wrote:
AFAIK, using 0.0.0.0 in SDP for "hold" is depreciated. You should use a=inactive
resp. a=sendonly or a=recvonly.
Indeed. Till it disappears from implementations,
it will take a while though.
-jiri
2 Aug
2 Aug
6:56 a.m.
Should I use "search" function in texttop to search
for the following strings,
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0.
a=sendonly.
Thanks,
Richard
--- Jiri Kuthan <jiri(a)iptel.org> wrote:
At 12:12 PM 7/31/2004, Klaus Darilion wrote:
AFAIK, using 0.0.0.0 in SDP for "hold" is
depreciated. You should use a=inactive resp.
a=sendonly or a=recvonly.
Indeed. Till it disappears from implementations,
it will take a while though.
-jiri
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11 Aug
11 Aug
12:36 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] rtpproxy warning "support disabled temporarily"
Hi,
I've installed SER 0.8.14 and seem to get the warning below:
-
WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy has been disabled temporarily
-
This was posted a while ago but I haven't seen a reply to it yet. Could
anyone point me to any doc on this?
Cheers,
Gerald.
12:56 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] rtpproxy warning "support disabled temporarily"
It is likely that you have rtpproxy/ser version mismatch. Update
rtpproxy to the latest version from cvs and you should be fine.
Regards,
Maxim
Begumisa Gerald M wrote:
Hi,
I've installed SER 0.8.14 and seem to get the warning below:
-
WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxy has been disabled temporarily
-
This was posted a while ago but I haven't seen a reply to it yet. Could
anyone point me to any doc on this?
Cheers,
Gerald.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7195
days inactive
7211
days old
7 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Begumisa Gerald M -
Bogdan-Andrei IANCU -
Jiri Kuthan -
Klaus Darilion -
Maxim Sobolev -
Richard