Hi,
I have a requirement to dynamically bind new ports to Kamailio during run-time and am trying to decide on a possible impl. Right now I am thinking the best way is to create a new thread for each dynamic bind and then replicate the code found in udp_rcv_loop(), ultimately calling recevice_msg() to do all the modular processing and route block executions. I know this would cater for UDP only at the moment but I suspect a similar concept could be employed for TCP.
Does anybody have any other ideas or foresee any problems?
Cheers Jason
Curious: what is the intent/use-case?
On 04/01/2014 01:33 PM, Jason Penton wrote:
Hi,
I have a requirement to dynamically bind new ports to Kamailio during run-time and am trying to decide on a possible impl. Right now I am thinking the best way is to create a new thread for each dynamic bind and then replicate the code found in udp_rcv_loop(), ultimately calling recevice_msg() to do all the modular processing and route block executions. I know this would cater for UDP only at the moment but I suspect a similar concept could be employed for TCP.
Does anybody have any other ideas or foresee any problems?
Cheers Jason
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Hey Alex,
IPSEC in IMS environments. Basically client and server "protected" ports at each end UE and Sip Proxy are negotiated during registration. Such security associations exist for the duration of the registration. If you are bored you can see the 3gpp spec TS 33.203 ;)
Cheers Jason
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.comwrote:
Curious: what is the intent/use-case?
On 04/01/2014 01:33 PM, Jason Penton wrote:
Hi,
I have a requirement to dynamically bind new ports to Kamailio during run-time and am trying to decide on a possible impl. Right now I am thinking the best way is to create a new thread for each dynamic bind and then replicate the code found in udp_rcv_loop(), ultimately calling recevice_msg() to do all the modular processing and route block executions. I know this would cater for UDP only at the moment but I suspect a similar concept could be employed for TCP.
Does anybody have any other ideas or foresee any problems?
Cheers Jason
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 United States Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-
Alex Balashov -
Jason Penton