On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:19 -0400, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) wrote: > I'm not convinced that the media relay would need to rewrite the payload > type field of the RTP packets. The payload type an endpoint puts in the > SDP is the payload type the endpoint expects to receive and *would* > prefer to send. My understanding of SDP and the offer/answer model is > that it allows for asymmetric payload types where each endpoint is > obligated to use the payload type requested by the far-end when sending > media packets relieving the media relay from having to do any > translation.
sipXbridge will generate an answer to the INVITE/Replaces, and that can force 206 to send using the payload numbers expected by the ITSP (which the ITSP previously supplied). But without doing a re-INVITE to the ITSP, there's no way that sipXbridge can change the (already established!) payload numbers that the ITSP is using to send RTP so that they match what 206 has declared that it is using to listen. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
