Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 Update : I piggy backed Freeswitch to Kamailio and have resolved the issue. No 
media touching us now. Pros and Cons for doing that I know. But we have it 
working.
Thanks for the dialog. 
KD
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 8:57:49 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
 wrote:  
 
  Response from the carrier matches your description. Looks like their Inbound 
carrier is latching but the outbound carrier is not and yes they recommended 
handling the NAT on my end.
That said, whats my options here. Is the native rtpproxy scalable? or is it 
better to go with a Freeswitch farm to handle media proxying. We are looking @ 
holding in upwards of 10K UAs on one instance of Kamailio. So whats the best 
architecture or that ?
H 
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 5:53:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 Re-read the piece of the article related to "RTP latching":

http://blog.csrpswitch.com/server-side-nat-traversal-with-kamailio-the-definitive-guide/

In order for RTP to reach a NAT'd endpoint, all other things being
equal, the other party has to do RTP latching. This is true of both
inbound and outbound calls. Failure to do it will result in one-way
audio where the NAT'd party can transmit but cannot receive. 

As far as identifying who is doing that latching, that's not clear from
your description. Some carrier media gateways do it, in which case you
can get away with not having an RTP relay in the middle. Most carrier
media gateways are designed for wholesale-ish peering and don't, as a
matter of policy, but some do. Or you could have some near-end solutions
at work of which you're not aware. 

It's also not clear whether you've definitively removed all rtpproxy
invocation from your Kamailio config, in both directions. But if you
haven't, I'd start there, and given your statement that you don't really
want to be in series to the RTP path, figure out what exactly doesn't
work. Then add rtpproxy as necessary. Beware the distinction between
inbound and outbound call flows.

-- Alex

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:15:48PM +, KamDev Essa wrote:

>  Well then why does Inbound (from carrier to NATed UA) call work. Kam is 
>doing something clever there. Why not when sending the call out. 
> KD  
>    On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:34:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
> wrote:  
>  
>  Oh, the UAs are NAT'd? Yeah, you're going to need something clever in the 
>middle that can do the RTP latching, then. 
> 
> -- Alex
> 
> --
> Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  

-- 
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC

Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) 
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 Response from the carrier matches your description. Looks like their Inbound 
carrier is latching but the outbound carrier is not and yes they recommended 
handling the NAT on my end.
That said, whats my options here. Is the native rtpproxy scalable? or is it 
better to go with a Freeswitch farm to handle media proxying. We are looking @ 
holding in upwards of 10K UAs on one instance of Kamailio. So whats the best 
architecture or that ?
H 
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 5:53:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 Re-read the piece of the article related to "RTP latching":

http://blog.csrpswitch.com/server-side-nat-traversal-with-kamailio-the-definitive-guide/

In order for RTP to reach a NAT'd endpoint, all other things being
equal, the other party has to do RTP latching. This is true of both
inbound and outbound calls. Failure to do it will result in one-way
audio where the NAT'd party can transmit but cannot receive. 

As far as identifying who is doing that latching, that's not clear from
your description. Some carrier media gateways do it, in which case you
can get away with not having an RTP relay in the middle. Most carrier
media gateways are designed for wholesale-ish peering and don't, as a
matter of policy, but some do. Or you could have some near-end solutions
at work of which you're not aware. 

It's also not clear whether you've definitively removed all rtpproxy
invocation from your Kamailio config, in both directions. But if you
haven't, I'd start there, and given your statement that you don't really
want to be in series to the RTP path, figure out what exactly doesn't
work. Then add rtpproxy as necessary. Beware the distinction between
inbound and outbound call flows.

-- Alex

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:15:48PM +, KamDev Essa wrote:

>  Well then why does Inbound (from carrier to NATed UA) call work. Kam is 
>doing something clever there. Why not when sending the call out. 
> KD  
>    On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:34:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
> wrote:  
>  
>  Oh, the UAs are NAT'd? Yeah, you're going to need something clever in the 
>middle that can do the RTP latching, then. 
> 
> -- Alex
> 
> --
> Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  

-- 
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC

Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) 
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[Alex Balashov]

Re-read the piece of the article related to "RTP latching":

http://blog.csrpswitch.com/server-side-nat-traversal-with-kamailio-the-definitive-guide/

In order for RTP to reach a NAT'd endpoint, all other things being
equal, the other party has to do RTP latching. This is true of both
inbound and outbound calls. Failure to do it will result in one-way
audio where the NAT'd party can transmit but cannot receive. 

As far as identifying who is doing that latching, that's not clear from
your description. Some carrier media gateways do it, in which case you
can get away with not having an RTP relay in the middle. Most carrier
media gateways are designed for wholesale-ish peering and don't, as a
matter of policy, but some do. Or you could have some near-end solutions
at work of which you're not aware. 

It's also not clear whether you've definitively removed all rtpproxy
invocation from your Kamailio config, in both directions. But if you
haven't, I'd start there, and given your statement that you don't really
want to be in series to the RTP path, figure out what exactly doesn't
work. Then add rtpproxy as necessary. Beware the distinction between
inbound and outbound call flows.

-- Alex

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:15:48PM +, KamDev Essa wrote:

>  Well then why does Inbound (from carrier to NATed UA) call work. Kam is 
> doing something clever there. Why not when sending the call out. 
> KD  
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:34:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
>  wrote:  
>  
>  Oh, the UAs are NAT'd? Yeah, you're going to need something clever in the 
> middle that can do the RTP latching, then. 
> 
> -- Alex
> 
> --
> Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  

-- 
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC

Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) 
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 Well then why does Inbound (from carrier to NATed UA) call work. Kam is doing 
something clever there. Why not when sending the call out. 
KD  
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:34:55 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 Oh, the UAs are NAT'd? Yeah, you're going to need something clever in the 
middle that can do the RTP latching, then. 

-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 Update. I just checked inbound calls using the "rtpproxy clean" cfg. 
Inbound calls from Carrier to UA work fine with bidirectional RTP. Its the 
outbound calls from UA to carrier that have a NAT issue.
I am so close :) 
KD
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 4:29:39 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
 wrote:  
 
  That did not help. sip capture shows NATed SDP being sent to carrier. 
Obviously carrier will not be able to make head nor tails about it. And carrier 
SDP sent to UA is perfect as its not NATed. So UA ===> Carrier is fine. Carrier 
> UA is no RTP.  Does not look like Kam alone can do RTP relase between 
NATed UA and the outside network entity. 
I will try Freeswitch piggy back and then let Freeswitch bypass media. Logic in 
Freeswitch may do the trick.   \
KD 
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 3:30:26 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 You'll want to not load the rtpproxy module, and lose any rtpproxy_*() calls 
in the actual script. 

On May 9, 2018 3:26:43 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>If I comment out the modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") as suggested, I do get RTP flowing just in one
>direction.  From the UA to kam and out to the carrier. I get nothing
>geting back to the end point. In other words 1 way RTP. Looks like its
>Kam RTPProxy or bust.
>KD
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:38:08 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>Correct. So remove all semblance of any RTP proxy and the resulting
>behaviour will be exactly what you expect. 
>
>On May 9, 2018 2:13:22 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>I dont. I want the 2 end points to talk to each other because I am on
>>AWS with shaky bandwidth stats. It can handle signalingbut not RTP. 
>>However the cfg entry modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") gives me to believe (not tcdumped RTP ports yet
>>to prove it ) that Kam anchors RTP @ port 7722. 
>>KD  
>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:02:14 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>> wrote:  
>> 
>>That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP
>>relay in the middle at all? 
>>
>>On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>wrote:
>>>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file
>anchor
>>>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>>>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>>>KD
>>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>>> wrote:  
>>> 
>>>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties'
>>SDP
>>>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>>>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>>>
>>>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>>wrote:
What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>>>message
to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
terms "bypassmedia".
KD
>>>
>>>
>>>-- Alex
>>>
>>>--
>>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>>>
>>>___
>>>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>  
>>
>>
>>-- Alex
>>
>>--
>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[Alex Balashov]

Oh, the UAs are NAT'd? Yeah, you're going to need something clever in the 
middle that can do the RTP latching, then. 

-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 That did not help. sip capture shows NATed SDP being sent to carrier. 
Obviously carrier will not be able to make head nor tails about it. And carrier 
SDP sent to UA is perfect as its not NATed. So UA ===> Carrier is fine. Carrier 
> UA is no RTP.  Does not look like Kam alone can do RTP relase between 
NATed UA and the outside network entity. 
I will try Freeswitch piggy back and then let Freeswitch bypass media. Logic in 
Freeswitch may do the trick.   \
KD 
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 3:30:26 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 You'll want to not load the rtpproxy module, and lose any rtpproxy_*() calls 
in the actual script. 

On May 9, 2018 3:26:43 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>If I comment out the modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") as suggested, I do get RTP flowing just in one
>direction.  From the UA to kam and out to the carrier. I get nothing
>geting back to the end point. In other words 1 way RTP. Looks like its
>Kam RTPProxy or bust.
>KD
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:38:08 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>Correct. So remove all semblance of any RTP proxy and the resulting
>behaviour will be exactly what you expect. 
>
>On May 9, 2018 2:13:22 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>I dont. I want the 2 end points to talk to each other because I am on
>>AWS with shaky bandwidth stats. It can handle signalingbut not RTP. 
>>However the cfg entry modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") gives me to believe (not tcdumped RTP ports yet
>>to prove it ) that Kam anchors RTP @ port 7722. 
>>KD  
>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:02:14 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>> wrote:  
>> 
>>That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP
>>relay in the middle at all? 
>>
>>On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>wrote:
>>>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file
>anchor
>>>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>>>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>>>KD
>>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>>> wrote:  
>>> 
>>>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties'
>>SDP
>>>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>>>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>>>
>>>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>>wrote:
What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>>>message
to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
terms "bypassmedia".
KD
>>>
>>>
>>>-- Alex
>>>
>>>--
>>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>>>
>>>___
>>>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>  
>>
>>
>>-- Alex
>>
>>--
>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 If I comment out the modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock", 
"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") as suggested, I do get RTP flowing just in one direction. 
 From the UA to kam and out to the carrier. I get nothing geting back to the 
end point. In other words 1 way RTP. Looks like its Kam RTPProxy or bust.
KD
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:38:08 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 Correct. So remove all semblance of any RTP proxy and the resulting behaviour 
will be exactly what you expect. 

On May 9, 2018 2:13:22 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>I dont. I want the 2 end points to talk to each other because I am on
>AWS with shaky bandwidth stats. It can handle signalingbut not RTP. 
>However the cfg entry modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") gives me to believe (not tcdumped RTP ports yet
>to prove it ) that Kam anchors RTP @ port 7722. 
>KD  
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:02:14 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP
>relay in the middle at all? 
>
>On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file anchor
>>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>>KD
>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>> wrote:  
>> 
>>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties'
>SDP
>>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>>
>>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>wrote:
>>>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>>>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>>message
>>>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>>>terms "bypassmedia".
>>>KD
>>
>>
>>-- Alex
>>
>>--
>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>>
>>___
>>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>  
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[Alex Balashov]

Correct. So remove all semblance of any RTP proxy and the resulting behaviour 
will be exactly what you expect. 

On May 9, 2018 2:13:22 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>I dont. I want the 2 end points to talk to each other because I am on
>AWS with shaky bandwidth stats. It can handle signalingbut not RTP. 
>However the cfg entry modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock",
>"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") gives me to believe (not tcdumped RTP ports yet
>to prove it ) that Kam anchors RTP @ port 7722. 
>KD  
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:02:14 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP
>relay in the middle at all? 
>
>On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file anchor
>>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>>KD
>>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
>> wrote:  
>> 
>>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties'
>SDP
>>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>>
>>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>>wrote:
>>>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>>>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>>message
>>>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>>>terms "bypassmedia".
>>>KD
>>
>>
>>-- Alex
>>
>>--
>>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>>
>>___
>>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>  
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 I dont. I want the 2 end points to talk to each other because I am on AWS with 
shaky bandwidth stats. It can handle signalingbut not RTP. 
However the cfg entry modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock", 
"udp:127.0.0.1:7722") gives me to believe (not tcdumped RTP ports yet to prove 
it ) that Kam anchors RTP @ port 7722. 
KD  
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 2:02:14 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP relay in 
the middle at all? 

On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file anchor
>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>KD
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties' SDP
>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>
>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>message
>>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>>terms "bypassmedia".
>>KD
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>
>___
>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[Alex Balashov]

That depends. Start with a more basic question: why do you need RTP relay in 
the middle at all? 

On May 9, 2018 1:54:55 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file anchor
>RTP on the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP
>to Freeswitch? Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
>KD
>On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov
> wrote:  
> 
>Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties' SDP
>unless you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like
>fix_nated_sdp()). 
>
>On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa 
>wrote:
>>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE
>message
>>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>>terms "bypassmedia".
>>KD
>
>
>-- Alex
>
>--
>Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 
>
>___
>Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
>https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>  


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

 So all calls that kamailio processes using the default cfg file anchor RTP on 
the kamailio server? Is it a best architecture to farm out RTP to Freeswitch? 
Or is the Kamailio RTP proxy a better gig?
KD
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 1:38:04 PM EDT, Alex Balashov 
 wrote:  
 
 Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties' SDP unless 
you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like fix_nated_sdp()). 

On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE message
>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>terms "bypassmedia".
>KD


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
  ___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[Alex Balashov]

Ironically, nothing. Kamailio doesn't touch the respective parties' SDP unless 
you invoke an RTP relay (or something else like fix_nated_sdp()). 

On May 9, 2018 1:03:19 PM EDT, KamDev Essa  wrote:
>What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a
>signally only server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE message
>to allow remote parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch
>terms "bypassmedia".
>KD


-- Alex

--
Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity. 

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

[SR-Users] Is Media Release (signaling only) possible in Kamailio?

[KamDev Essa]

What cfg files changes do I need to make to get Kamailio to be a signally only 
server, yet manipulate the SDP part of the INVITE message to allow remote 
parties to send media to each other? In Freeswitch terms "bypassmedia".
KD___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users