3 Mar
2005
3 Mar
'05
noon
Hi Guys,
I tested the patch that was released on the mailing list when it was
tehre (proberbly 2-3-4 months ago) And it worked like a charm.
-atle
* Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> [050303 11:38]:
Hi!
Some time ago, there was a patch on the mailinglist for this extension.
But it never was included in the official rtpproxy. AFAIK mediaproxy
supports also video. Nevertheless, it would be great if video support
would be included in nathelper and rtpproxy.
regards,
klaus
szj wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
take a look at fix_nated_register() from
nathelper. This function will
use the received column.
Thank you very much for you timely reply!
Yes, you are right, I am now browsing the fix_nated_*() functions.
What I want to to is to extend the extract_mediaport() to support
the extraction of the audio and video port from SDP. Of course,
we had to modify the alter_mediaport(), rtpproxy program and protocol
between them.:(
I wonder who can give some advice on that!
Thanks for all of you.
Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
regards,
klaus
szj wrote:
During the testing procedure, I found that when both sip UAs
who are located behind the same NAT cloud want to establish
voice or video connection, there is not neccesary to bridge
them with rtpproxy. Only in situations where one of UA sits
behind NAT or each UA sits behind different NAT clouds, that
need a RTPProxy to bridge their media stream.
What I mean is SER can determine the use of RTPproxy or not
through the registration of sip UA. In location table, there
are recieved and contact fields. But ser don't fill the
recieved field, I think it is very userful for NAT.
Glad to hear your instructions
Best Regards
Sun Zongjun
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers