28 Jan
2010
28 Jan
'10
1:04 a.m.
El Miércoles, 27 de Enero de 2010, Ovidiu Sas escribió:
It is the expected behavior. You can do that on
failure_route (if you arm
one). And if you do redirection based on 3xx, there's no need to
terminated the rtp session and start a new one.
Good point. Terminating the rtpproxy session upon receipt of an error response
would break the possibility of using serial forking (in failure_route) with
the already opened rtpproxy session (anyhow I think it's better to invoke
RtpProxy for each transaction serial/parallel fork).
However, IMHO it could be more user-friendly. In case the incoming transaction
ends (when Kamailio replies [3456]XX to the UAC) then it makes no sense to
leave the rtpproxy session open. Instead, rtpproxy module could terminate it
(if it exists).
This is: I just mean the case in which Kamailio terminates the incoming
transaction, but not the case in which a error response is got from
downstream.
Opinnions?
Thanks a lot.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>