Thanks Răzvan,
 
That's what I was guessing. 
Thanks again for the confirmation.
 
BR
-Gary
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 at 3:20 AM
From: "Răzvan Crainea" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] fix_nated_sdp
Hi, Gary!

If you call fix_nated_sdp() before t_relay() there's no need to call it once again in failure route. When failure route is called, you are processing the request just before t_relay(), so it already has the SDP fixed. Although this is a bit counter-intuitive, we are planning to change this behavior :).

Best regards,
Răzvan
 
On 08/04/2014 10:40 PM, Gary Nyquist wrote:
Hi Răzvan,
 
I am using 1.11.2-tls
 
version: opensips 1.11.2-tls (x86_64/linux)
flags: STATS: On, USE_IPV6, USE_TCP, USE_TLS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT
ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16, MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535
poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
git revision: 5708ad4
 
Not using any "rtpproxy/media proxy".
 
Is "fix_nated_sdp()" is the only function that prepends IP to "Connection Information (c)"?
 
I am using "fix_nated_sdp()" before "t_rely()" to destination.
In failure_route, I use "fix_nated_sdp()" again to route the call to a different destination.
I do "fix_nated_sdp()" again in "failure_route" because, I thought, in the 'failure_route' the intial request is processed.
May be I am wrong assuming this.
 
BR
-Gary
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 at 4:21 AM
From: "Răzvan Crainea" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] fix_nated_sdp
Hi, Gary!

What version of OpenSIPS are you using?
Are you also using rtpproxy/media proxy for your calls? Most likely you are changing the SDP information twice.

Best regards,
Răzvan
 
On 08/02/2014 04:31 AM, Gary Nyquist wrote:
Hi,
 
Found that, fix_nated_sdp() is changing the connection info from:
 
Connection Information (c): IN IP4 64.71.31.202
to
Connection Information (c): IN IP4 64.71.31.20264.71.31.202
 
Is this the expected behavior?
 
Thanks
-Gary
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
 

 
 
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to