[SR-Users] [sr-dev] rtpproxy (k): removal of force_rtpproxy

[César Pinto Magán]

I mean for a more detailed functionality and capabilities. The bridge mode appears in http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/SER+example+outboundproxy and it is talked about in this list (I had to search deep int the list records to find some about). It is supposed to be used in a multihomed site, but it doesn't work very fine for me (I had to put explicitly the IPs to be used)



César Pinto (2439)
+34 91 787 23 00 alhambra-eidos.es



-----Mensaje original-----
De: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda at gmail.com] 
Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 18:03
Para: César Pinto Magán
CC: Alex Balashov; sr-users at lists.sip-router.org; sr-dev
Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] rtpproxy (k): removal of force_rtpproxy


  Hi Cesar,

are you looking for rtpproxy protocol format or for a more detailed 
functionality of rtpproxy capabilities (e.g., what means bridge mode)?

Cheers,
Daniel


On 9/21/10 5:52 PM, César Pinto Magán wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm actually using rtpproxy_offer/answer(), and it works fine for us. I had to move from force_rtp_rpoxy() because it had several rare behaviors and the use of the offer/answer model solved them. It is very simple to implement.
>
> By the way, is there any type of documentation about rtpproxy and their commands (i.e. how works the bridge/switch mode of the rtp). The rtpproxy wiki says nothing about it.
>
>
> César Pinto (2439)
> +34 91 787 23 00 alhambra-eidos.es
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: sr-users-bounces at lists.sip-router.org [mailto:sr-users-bounces at lists.sip-router.org] En nombre de Alex Balashov
> Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 17:32
> Para: daniel at kamailio.org
> CC: sr-users at lists.sip-router.org; sr-dev
> Asunto: Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] rtpproxy (k): removal of force_rtpproxy
>
> On 09/21/2010 11:27 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
>> personally I haven't tested much those functions. Maybe is better for
>> now to mark it obsolete and add a warning message at startup (via
>> fixup), then remove it with next release, allowing some maturity tests
>> for new ones. I am saying that also because most of existing configs
>> out there are using this function and new people will look for it.
> I agree.
>
> All of our configs use force_rtp_proxy(), but I would be happy to
> migrate them;  however, I need some reasonable assurance that
> rtpproxy_offer/answer() will actually work.
>
> As can be seen from a number of previous threads on the list, I had to
> call force_rtp_proxy() to get several common scenarios to work, even
> though supposedly rtpproxy_offer/answer() are just wrappers (the code
> would suggest that), and even though the 'nathelper' documentation
> says that supposedly they will accept and use the same flags as those
> listed for force_rtp_proxy() the same way.  It has not been true in my
> experience.
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com