What about the '1' and '2' flags? -ovidiu
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Carsten Bock <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > you may use X, IE and EI with both rtpproxy and with mediaproxy-ng. > All differences between the two implementation are queried by the > rtpproxy-module, so i see no real reason to differentiate the modules. > You would find similar differences when running different versions of > rtpproxy, but the rtpproxy module handles these differences > internally. > > Carsten > > 2012/11/6 Ovidiu Sas <[email protected]>: >> It is not good to have the same module talking different protocols >> with different rtpproxy servers if there's no clean separation between >> them. It seems that this new features are supported by the new fork >> of rtpproxy, while the basic rtpproxy is left behind. This will >> create confusion for first time users. >> Maybe we should have a new module - rtpproxy-ng sitting on top of the >> existing rtpproxy. Or keep only one module, but with tight control >> over parameters that are passed. This will be tricky if rtpproxy >> servers are mixed with rtpproxy-ng servers and all are controlled by >> the same instance of kamailio. >> >> Regards, >> Ovidiu Sas >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Carsten Bock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> in this case no error would be reported from the module, it would >>> translate the x to ie/ei and probably add the ie parameters too. The >>> ngcp-mediaproxy-ng ignores this, i'm not sure about the rtpproxy.org, >>> though. >>> Probably something, i should look at. >>> >>> Carsten >>> >>> 2012/11/6 Ovidiu Sas <[email protected]>: >>>> What will happen is you call offer/answer with "iex" or "xie" flags? >>>> Will this be flagged as an error? >>>> >>>> -ovidiu >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Carsten Bock <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Ovidiu, >>>>> >>>>> that won't work, since you would have to call rtpproxy_manage("IE") >>>>> for the request and rtpproxy_manage("EI") for the reply. >>>>> Since this flag will check for IPv4/v6 in the SDP, the reply would >>>>> send "IE" for both request and reply. >>>>> >>>>> Carsten >>>>> >>>>> 2012/11/6 Ovidiu Sas <[email protected]>: >>>>>> 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
