Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips
Commit: 7637f589f8ff9b2ce636a63d6eab5ffc05efae67
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/7637f589f8ff9b2ce636a63d6eab5ffc05efae67
Author: Liviu Chircu li...@opensips.org
Date: 2014-02-20 (Thu, 20 Feb
@@ -228,6 +232,7 @@ struct module_exports exports = {
str call_token;
char* prepaid_account;
int call_limit;
+str sip_application;
Please move this after call_token.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hello All!
After finishing with RTPproxy protocol support, I'm working on a
RTPproxy-ng protocol support in Wireshark. I've just submitted an
initial version with a very basic functionality:
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/268/
So far there is no support for RTP/RTCP dissection based on a
Hi @lemenkov - this rtpproxy_ng module..what is the difference from the
existing rtpproxy module ?
Thanks and regards,
Bogdan
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@nikbyte, the problem is you do in the same time fix_nated_sdp() and
rtpproxy_offer() - both functions are trying to re-write some IP address in
SDP. I agree this should not lead to bogus message, but also from logical
perspective is a bit of a non-sense :).
---
Reply to this email directly or
It seems @rrb3942 and @digipigeon are happy (no complains after the fix), so
closing this ticket.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/issues/114#issuecomment-35654898___
Devel mailing list
Closed #114.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/issues/114___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hmm... Maybe you're right. I'll check. But in my case it has logical
perspective.
You know, maybe it would be very nice to have in-script function to apply all
lumps (and rebuild message), like in kamailio.
What do you think?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
