[Kamailio-Users] [SR-Users] force_rtp_proxy() vis-a-vis BYE

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>:
>> No, I don't want it based on dialog module
>
> I second this one, it will add pretty much overload.
>
> However, it can be very simple, even without tm support. If calling like
> rtpproxy_session_init() adds a nat=yes in the Record-Route, all processing
> can be done in rtpproxy_session_update() by discovery of that parameter or
> not.
>
> rtpproxy_sessipn_update() can be done automatically by registering
> pre-script callbacks for requests and replies, so the config file will
> become very simple. It is not something complex to implement, just some
> spare time, the code is there, needs some re-structuring in new functions.
>
> There will be a dependency on rr module, but I guess that is fine.


Hi Daniel, please clarify me is your suggestion would require running
(in the config script) the function rtpproxy_session_update() in
onreply_route.

If this info is not appended to the transaction info (so doesn't use
TM module) then it should be manually invoked in onreply_route, right?

What I suggested is that the rtpproxy function is just invoked for the
request, it adds some info to the transaction so rtpproxy is also
invoked in the response/ACK.

However, I think that nathelper should perform in a transparent way
the detection of SDP so it wouldn't be required to inspect the body
type in the config file (which makes it really ugly).

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc at aliax.net>