Hello all,
Attached is a simple patch I have made to allow SEMs to transparently
pass SIP-T messages without complaining when configured as a
transparent SBC. It isn't fully correct as it makes the assumption
that if you have a multi-part body that there is probably an SDP as
one of it's parts.
However I have a question. When using SEMS as a transparent SBC,
would it be ok to add a flag inside AmSipDialog instructing it to
bypass all SDP offer/answer check validations (or at least make sure
it doesn't try to generate SDP)?
Regards,
Torrey
diff --git a/core/AmSipDialog.cpp b/core/AmSipDialog.cpp
index 411a5fc..1a549d6 100644
--- a/core/AmSipDialog.cpp
+++ b/core/AmSipDialog.cpp
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int AmSipDialog::onTxReply(AmSipReply& reply)
&& (reply.content_type == SIP_APPLICATION_SDP);
bool has_sdp = !reply.body.empty()
- && (reply.content_type == SIP_APPLICATION_SDP);
+ /*&& (reply.content_type == SIP_APPLICATION_SDP)*/;
if (!has_sdp && !generate_sdp) {
// let's see whether we should force SDP or not.
_______________________________________________
Semsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
