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

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@gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 18:03 Para: César Pinto Magán CC: Alex Balashov; sr-users(a)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(a)lists.sip-router.org > [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] En nombre de Alex Balashov > Enviado el: martes, 21 de septiembre de 2010 17:32 > Para: daniel(a)kamailio.org > CC: sr-users(a)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. >