On 10/28/13 11:59, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Richard Fuchs writes: > >> Possibly it's because of the non-standard RTCP port in the answer. >> Technically this is supported but the implementation is more of a hack >> than anything else for the time being. > > looks like the rtpc port number in 200 ok is not "non-standard" > anymore. from rfc 3605 dated october 2003:
That's not what I meant with "non standard". Maybe I should have said: explicitly specified as a port not equal to the implicit port. But that would have been too long of a sentence :) cheers
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
