Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end- point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Hi!
On 7/22/07, Adrian Georgescu ag@ag-projects.com wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end- point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Support for a bridge mode network configuration - like rtpproxy.
t.38 passthrough.
regards Rosario
----- Original Message ----- From: "Morten Isaksen" misak@misak.dk To: "Adrian Georgescu" ag@ag-projects.com; users@openser.org Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Users] MediaProxy 2.0 roadmap
Hi!
On 7/22/07, Adrian Georgescu ag@ag-projects.com wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end- point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Support for a bridge mode network configuration - like rtpproxy.
-- Morten Isaksen http://www.misak.dk/blog/
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Working MySQL accounting that DOES NOT require RADIUS.
Jeremy McNamara
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:11:04 +0200, Jeremy McNamara jj@nufone.net wrote:
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Working MySQL accounting that DOES NOT require RADIUS.
Hi, As I was hoping to use the current version of Mediaproxy with Openser and do accounting in Mysql, I was alarmed by your request. Do you mean the current Mediaproxy does not work with Mysql at all, or that there are issues? I couldn't immediately find any bug reports when seraching for 'Mediaproxy MySQL accounting'. Could you highlight the issues to expect when using Mediaproxy to do accounting without Radius please?
Thanks,
Richard
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Written in C would be preferred as well.
Jeremy McNamara
Hi Adrian,
what about possibility of copying as per request each channel RTP (to be used further when call recording is needed).
Cheers, DanB
On 7/22/07, Jeremy McNamara jj@nufone.net wrote:
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
I'd also like to have this "forked" RTP feature so we can redirect a copy of the stream to another location.
Sam.
2007/7/23, Dan-Cristian Bogos dan.bogos@gmail.com:
Hi Adrian,
what about possibility of copying as per request each channel RTP (to be used further when call recording is needed).
Cheers, DanB
On 7/22/07, Jeremy McNamara jj@nufone.net wrote:
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi Adrian
I'd like a feature which allow OpenSER to force the call to be proxied via a different set of servers.
This would help with multi site installation where control of which set of proxy used would be helpful.
I'd also like to see away of having calling be routed thought multiply proxies.
This would help where routed link between sites might not be the best way of sending traffic.
Hope I'm making sense :)
I have no problem with media proxy being written in python but I would suggest that some profiling of the code and rewriting some of the modules or functions in C would help.
Mike
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi everybody,
This is the same idea I want to propose, a way to put a specific call into a specific group of media proxies. Maybe this change is more like a modification to the MEDIAPROXY Module; if OpenSER would have a way to say to the dispatcher what criteria use to select media proxies, rather than using a static configuration, I think that would be enough. The next step would be which tools use to decide from OpenSER what set of media proxies use based on the best or nearer way to reach the users, but Is that something possible to do through Dynamic Load-Balancing DNS dlbDNS?
Regards,
Dioris
-----Mensaje original----- De: users-bounces@openser.org [mailto:users-bounces@openser.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor Enviado el: 23 de Julio de 2007 4:58 a.m. Para: Adrian Georgescu; devel@openser.org; users@openser.org Asunto: Re: [OpenSER-Users] MediaProxy 2.0 roadmap
Hi Adrian
I'd like a feature which allow OpenSER to force the call to be proxied via a different set of servers.
This would help with multi site installation where control of which set of proxy used would be helpful.
I'd also like to see away of having calling be routed thought multiply proxies.
This would help where routed link between sites might not be the best way of sending traffic.
Hope I'm making sense :)
I have no problem with media proxy being written in python but I would suggest that some profiling of the code and rewriting some of the modules or functions in C would help.
Mike
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi everybody,
This is the same idea I want to propose, a way to put a specific call into a specific group of media proxies. Maybe this change is more like a modification to the MEDIAPROXY Module; if OpenSER would have a way to say to the dispatcher what criteria use to select media proxies, rather than using a static configuration, I think that would be enough. The next step would be which tools use to decide from OpenSER what set of media proxies use based on the best or nearer way to reach the users, but Is that something possible to do through Dynamic Load-Balancing DNS dlbDNS?
Regards,
Dioris
-----Mensaje original----- De: users-bounces@openser.org [mailto:users-bounces@openser.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor Enviado el: 23 de Julio de 2007 4:58 a.m. Para: Adrian Georgescu; devel@openser.org; users@openser.org Asunto: Re: [OpenSER-Users] MediaProxy 2.0 roadmap
Hi Adrian
I'd like a feature which allow OpenSER to force the call to be proxied via a different set of servers.
This would help with multi site installation where control of which set of proxy used would be helpful.
I'd also like to see away of having calling be routed thought multiply proxies.
This would help where routed link between sites might not be the best way of sending traffic.
Hope I'm making sense :)
I have no problem with media proxy being written in python but I would suggest that some profiling of the code and rewriting some of the modules or functions in C would help.
Mike
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
How about some time-out funtionality? So that out-time calls could be disconnected, or forwarded (to a URA, p.ex.) after a predefined time or after receiving a Radius PoD packet?? All to accommodate better Pre-Pay systems.
Edson
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@openser.org [mailto:users-bounces@openser.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Georgescu Sent: domingo, 22 de julho de 2007 10:59 To: users openser.org; devel@openser.org Cc: AG Support Subject: [OpenSER-Users] MediaProxy 2.0 roadmap
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end- point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
I think it would be very useful to have some level of bi-directional integration with OpenSER such that an active dialog can be terminated by/in the mediaproxy and that termination would be communicated to OpenSER so that the appropriate SIP messages could be sent out
This could facilitate: - Dead/Open session detection - Pre-Paid billing environments (length restrictions on the call)
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi Adrian, -Call Recording -Music on Hold
Bayan Towfiq
On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:38 AM, Tavis P. wrote:
I think it would be very useful to have some level of bi-directional integration with OpenSER such that an active dialog can be terminated by/in the mediaproxy and that termination would be communicated to OpenSER so that the appropriate SIP messages could be sent out
This could facilitate:
- Dead/Open session detection
- Pre-Paid billing environments (length restrictions on the call)
Adrian Georgescu wrote:
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end-point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi Adrian
I have read some time back rtpproxy handle more calls than MediaProxy is this addressing in new version of MediaProxy 2.X
ram
Hi!
Regarding earlier discussions regarding Python's support (or lack of?) for SMP processors - can you give some reflection on this matter - Is this an issue or just a misunderstanding and/or an old problem with earlier versions? - Should one use single core processors for the python applications/modules? - Is it dependent on the Linux distribution, some works better, some not?
BR///
Fredrik
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Georgescu" ag@ag-projects.com To: "users openser.org" users@openser.org; devel@openser.org Cc: "AG Support" support@ag-projects.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: [OpenSER-Users] MediaProxy 2.0 roadmap
Hello,
I am capturing requirements for MediaProxy 2.0. This is a complete rewrite based on a new design that allows for better security and end- point mobility, higher scalability on a per node basis and new functionality.
If you would like to see new functionality included in MediaProxy 2.0, now is a good moment to describe it.
Regards, Adrian
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-
Adrian Georgescu -
Bayan Towfiq -
Dan-Cristian Bogos -
Dioris Moreno -
Edson -
Fredrik Lundmark -
Jeremy McNamara -
Mike O'Connor -
Morten Isaksen -
ram -
Richard Bennett -
Rosario Pingaro -
samuel -
Tavis P.