[SR-Users] rtpproxy_manage() issues in rtpproxy-ng

Richard Fuchs rfuchs at sipwise.com
Wed Apr 23 19:36:19 CEST 2014

On 04/23/14 13:24, Alex Balashov wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 01:22 PM, Richard Fuchs wrote:
>> Main selection criterion is whether the message is a request or a
>> reply, second criterion is the SIP method (taken from the CSeq)
>> and/or the response code in case of a reply. The route type is only
>> marginally relevant.
> Yeah, so the key question is: what is the message we are acting upon?
> It it is my theory that in a request route that is called from a
> failure_route that is triggered by a 302 reply, the message being
> operated on is actually the 302 reply, and not an initial INVITE. And
> that's why it doesn't produce the offer command as expected.

Correct, it would be sending a delete to the proxy. I'm not certain that
instead sending an offer is indeed the expected behaviour.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 880 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20140423/b81fb4e9/attachment.pgp>

More information about the sr-users mailing list