On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 8:12 PM Steve Murphy <m...@parsetree.com> wrote:


> While my work revolves largely around asterisk, this issue comes up over
> and over, especially when it's time to upgrade to a new version of
> Asterisk. I keep intending to ask about it, but finally, I have this
> chance. Why exactly is masquerade() still necessary? I am asking more
> out of curiosity than condemnation or other negative reasons!  I would
> love to understand the issues, perhaps at some point in time, I may be
> able to help.

Because a channel isn't always bridged when you want to swap it with
another, and there is no other operation or method to do so except for
masquerade. To get rid of masquerade would require a rearchitecture such
that bridging is always occurring, or to make everything (applications and
other APIs) aware of some kind of swap operation. These days masquerades
aren't really a huge thing like they were in the old days because it's
mostly been hidden from view and has become an internal detail. Many years
ago it would leak out into places such as AMI and be more problematic.

Joshua C. Colp
Asterisk Project Lead
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at www.sangoma.com and www.asterisk.org
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:

Reply via email to