On 14/04/14 10:29, Cock Ootec wrote:

I am sorry for inconvenience. Yes I asked these questions in developer context.

Now I am able to work with RTP packets in my module (I know that this seems to be useless

It is not useless if needed. Maybe you can share more details and we can give hints on what could be reused for easier development. Also, you may be surprised to find other people having same interest and in case it is something wanted by more  and you want to release your code open source, then we can include the module in official kamailio git repository.

Cheers,
Daniel

but it is for my school project ;-) ) so if anyone asks it is possible.

Thanks for your help

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net> wrote:

On 07 Apr 2014, at 15:39, Andreas Granig <agranig@sipwise.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 03/26/2014 03:18 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> No. You can't route the RTP and RTCP traffic to Kamailio, by definition.
>>
>> You keep asking questions that betray a lack of basic understanding of SIP network elements. I think you should take Olle's suggestion and learn how it works.
>
> For the sake of discussion, I think it's somewhat possible to route
> rtp/rtcp with kamailio. Does it make sense? No. Would it work? Probably,
> in a limited way.

Of course, if you are a developer, you can do anything. :-)

But the question wasn't asked in the developer context, at least I did not
parse it that way...

/O

>
> So if I wanted to do something like this, then I'd find the point where
> kamailio is actually calling recv(), then find out where it feeds the
> received data into the sip parser. There, I'd implement the logic to
> quickly check if what we're dealing with is an rtp packet, and handle it
> differently than other packets. For SDP in request and response bodies
> flowing through my config, I'd modify SDP to put 5060 as media port for
> the various streams.
>
> Now since every packet will be received on port 5060, you can't really
> distinguish between different streams, as you can't rely on the source
> address advertised in SDP because of NAT, so any NAT scenario with more
> than one phone behind that NAT is going to break the whole thing. Well,
> putting aside NAT, you now would have to maintain mapping tables of
> source addresses announced in SDP and check (and rely on) them for
> inbound packets and map them to the outbound leg based on the source
> address. That might work for non-NAT scenarios (but who's using NAT in a
> world of IPv6 anyways?).
>
> Now the question is, why would anyone want to do that? If the intention
> is to make it work better in NAT environments, then our OP has probably
> not thought it through entirely.
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev


_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev