On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 01:47 -0800, Steve Langstaff wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Peter Howard > > Sent: 14 November 2006 20:51 > > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > > Subject: RE: Problem found Re: [asterisk-users] Headaches > > with Video over SIP > > > > Codec identifiers >= 96 refer to dynamic payload types. > > > > > > > Thanks, that's worth knowing. > > > > > They have to be negotiated on each SDP offer/answer exchange. > > > > > > So for the Polycom->Asterisk traffic, Asterisk should parse the SDP > > > and say to itself "Hey, the caller wants me to send it H264 marked > > > with payload type 109, and/or H263-1998 marked with payload > > type 96." > > > and adapt it's outgoing payload type marking accordingly. > > > > > > > "should parse the SDP". It's not at 1.4.0-beta3 (or, > > seemingly, earlier versions). Should I submit a bug report for this? > > *If* Asterisk is claiming compliance with RFC 2327, *and* if you read > the RFC the same way that I do, *and* you are actually seeing what you > have reported then I guess you *could* submit a bug report, but I'm not > going to say that you *should* submit a report (is that disclaimered > enough?). As an aside, it appears that this issue might already be the > subject of bugs 6568 and 7461. >
It looks exactly like bug 6568 (I'd missed the remapping in the OK back to the first phone). I think I'll try to reopen it. -- Peter Howard URSYS 13 Burwood Rd, Burwood, NSW 2134 Ph: 02 8745 2816 Fax: 02 8745 2828 _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
