Hi Iñaki, Thanks for heads-up :) .
In this case, we can simply check the SDP for the "sendonly" occurrence, right? Regards, Bogdan Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2010/7/6 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Jesse, >> >> A re-INVITE putting a call "on hold" has IP 0.0.0.0 in the SDP (c line) >> > > Hi bogdan, such mechanism (putting 0.0.0.0) is deprecated and just > valid according to RFC 2543 (old SIP RFC): > > > RFC 3264: > > 8.4 Putting a Unicast Media Stream on Hold > > If a party in a call wants to put the other party "on hold", i.e., > request that it temporarily stops sending one or more unicast media > streams, a party offers the other an updated SDP. > > If the stream to be placed on hold was previously a sendrecv media > stream, it is placed on hold by marking it as sendonly. If the > stream to be placed on hold was previously a recvonly media stream, > it is placed on hold by marking it inactive. > > [...] > > RFC 2543 [10] specified that placing a user on hold was accomplished > by setting the connection address to 0.0.0.0. Its usage for putting > a call on hold is no longer recommended, since it doesn't allow for > RTCP to be used with held streams, doesn't work with IPv6, and breaks > with connection oriented media. > > > -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Bootcamp 20 - 24 September 2010, Frankfurt, Germany www.voice-system.ro _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
