2 Jun
2015
2 Jun
'15
1:35 p.m.
Richard Fuchs wrote
On 29/05/15 11:16 AM, Vasiliy Ganchev wrote:
On May 29, 2015; 3:19pm, Richard Fuchs wrote:
Looks like you're making an RTP/SAVPF offer to a client that speaks
RTP/AVPF only, and you're neglecting to instruct rtpengine to do any
translation between the two. The solution is to include the "RTP/AVPF"
flag in the offer.
There's also a stray "delete" in there, which you may want to eliminate.
It's harmless as it is, but it probably shouldn't be there.
Cheers
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list A good way to start debugging this is to run
rtpengine with log-level 7
and post the full log for such a call.
Hi Richard! Thanks for answer!
Call log written on WS_Kamailio, rtpengine with log-level 7
Call from UA_WS 272 calling to UA_SIP 271 attached.
200OK_without_DTLS_fingerprint_log_for_list.txt
<http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/file/n138286/200OK_without_DTLS_fingerprint_log_for_list.txt>
sr-users@.sip-router
Hi Richard!
Thank you for your reply and suggested solution. You was right, in 200 OK
was set RTP/AVPF (and in offer
RTP/SAVPF) and I did nothing with this mismatch.
Now, playing around with flags for RTPengine, I have one questions for such
case:
Browser send INVITE with RTP/SAVPF, RTPengine send forward to client with
RTP/AVPF
When comes 200 OK with RTP/AVPF RTPengine change it to RTP/SAVPF and
forward to browser. In this case I got in browser log:
setRemoteDescription() | error: +5ms Failed to set remote answer sdp: Offer
and answer descriptions m-lines are not matching. Rejecting answer.
Does this configuration has to work, or on the whole path has to be only one
profile RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers
--
View this message in context:
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/RTPengine-Kamailio-200-OK-without-D…
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.