[OpenSIPS-Users] Possible issue with rtpproxy_offer

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Daniel,

not really....the bad idea was to to rtpproxy stuff in request route 
(globally), considering  that you want to do per-branch changes 
:)....Again use only branch route to do the per-branch changes.

REgards,
Bogdan

Daniel Goepp wrote:
> Okay, I guess I will have to figure out a different way to handle 
> this.  Am I correct in assuming then the idea of putting a route(10) 
> for example nested in the failure block of another route is a bad idea?
>
> -dg
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu 
> <bogdan at voice-system.ro <mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Daniel,
>
>     it is not a bug - the idea is you must not call RTPproxy function more
>     than once per branch - and keep in mind that whatever changes you
>     do in
>     request route do apply to all branches.....
>
>     If you want to do per branch changed, use the branch route.
>
>     Regards,
>     Bogdan
>
>     Daniel Goepp wrote:
>     > I don't think I would call this a "bug" quite yet, but figured it
>     > might be worth bringing up.  Here is the call scenario:
>     >
>     > User A calls User B, no answer, timer hit, forward call.  The
>     original
>     > timeout was on route(1), and I just rewrite some info, and execute
>     > route(10) from the failure branch.  This is probably bad
>     practice, and
>     > I would appreciate input on how this would be better handled.  But
>     > that said, here is what I see.  Since route(1) had already done a
>     > rtpproxy_offer, when I hit route (10), it does the same again,
>     > resulting in a line in the SDP that looks like:
>     >
>     > m=audio 3061830618 RTP/AVP 99 100 101 9 11 0 102.
>     >
>     > See the problem?  If  I make a call that naturally would go to
>     > route(10), that is not a problem, I see:
>     >
>     > m=audio 28568 RTP/AVP 99 100 101 9 11 0 102.
>     >
>     > It would appear that rtpproxy_offer is trying to append the port
>     > number to an already existing port number.  Make sense?
>     >
>     > -dg
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Users mailing list
>     > Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>     > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     OpenSIPS Bootcamp
>     20 - 24 September 2010, Frankfurt, Germany
>     www.voice-system.ro <http://www.voice-system.ro>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Users mailing list
>     Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>   


-- 
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Bootcamp
20 - 24 September 2010, Frankfurt, Germany
www.voice-system.ro