Thank you once again Richard. I think that covers all my confusion. Regards, Patrick.
From: Richard Mudgett <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 21:48 To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Bridge configuration in Asterisk 13 [Spam score:8%] [Spam score:8%] On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Patrick Beaumont <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks Richard. This is exactly the answer I was looking for. I'm now assuming that Asterisk 11 was using it's equivalent "bridge_simple" but I was getting confused because the only bridge module I saw in modules.conf was bridge_softmix. When I upgraded to Asterisk13 that would have been the only bridge getting loaded at first. Is it expected that if bridge_softmix handled a normal two party call then MOH would no longer function? That is correct. bridge_softmix is optimized for multi-party conferencing where passing control frames such as hold/unhold to other parties in the bridge is not a good idea. For example, if three parties are in a bridge and if party A pressed its hold button then that should not necessarily prevent parties B and C from talking to each other. Using bridge_softmix for a normal two party call is a last resort. It works reasonably well as a normal two party bridge technology but it is computationally expensive and not intended for that purpose. Richard
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
