Hello Carsten, This flag could be also used for bridging between private and public IPv4 networks as it is only a shortcut between "ie" and "ei" flags, unless I missed something here. Is that right?
Regards, Ovidiu Sas On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Module: sip-router > Branch: master > Commit: 5b6f68ae0dc50c05902ace37f1081b19bda0320e > URL: > http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=5b6f68ae0dc50c05902ace37f1081b19bda0320e > > Author: Carsten Bock <[email protected]> > Committer: Carsten Bock <[email protected]> > Date: Tue Nov 6 16:32:50 2012 +0100 > > RTPProxy: Documentation improvements > - added a note about compatibility with different implementations for the > "x"-flag (namely RFC 4091 and RFC 6157) > - made more clear, that "x" is only a shortcut for the "IE" and "EI" flags of > RTPProxy > > --- > > modules/rtpproxy/doc/rtpproxy_admin.xml | 8 +++++++- > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/modules/rtpproxy/doc/rtpproxy_admin.xml > b/modules/rtpproxy/doc/rtpproxy_admin.xml > index e3a403e..b7f719e 100644 > --- a/modules/rtpproxy/doc/rtpproxy_admin.xml > +++ b/modules/rtpproxy/doc/rtpproxy_admin.xml > @@ -343,11 +343,17 @@ rtpproxy_offer(); > the 'w' flag for clients behind NAT! See also > above notes! > </para></listitem> > <listitem><para> > - <emphasis>x</emphasis> - this flag will do > automatic bridging between IPv4 on the > + <emphasis>x</emphasis> - this flag a shortcut > for using the "ie" or "ei"-flags of RTP-Proxy, > + in order to do automatic bridging between > IPv4 on the > "internal network" and IPv6 on the "external > network". The distinction is done by > the given IP in the SDP, e.g. a IPv4 Address > will always call "ie" to the RTPProxy > (IPv4(i) to IPv6(e)) and an IPv6Address will > always call "ei" to the RTPProxy (IPv6(e) > to IPv4(i)). > + </para><para> > + Note: Please note, that this will only work > properly with non-dual-stack user-agents or with > + dual-stack clients according to RFC6157 > (which suggest ICE for Dual-Stack implementations). > + This short-cut will not work properly with > RFC4091 (ANAT) compatible clients, which suggests > + having different m-lines with different > IP-protocols grouped together. > </para></listitem> > <listitem><para> > <emphasis>f</emphasis> - instructs rtpproxy > to ignore marks > _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
