[OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking

Răzvan Crainea razvan at opensips.org
Wed Nov 9 11:23:09 CET 2016

Hi, Robert!

Yes, the I and E parameters are mandatory, and they should describe how 
the RTP will flow. For example if the flow is from IPv4 to IPv6, you 
should use EI; if the flow is from IPv4 to IPv6, then you should use IE. 
And so on, depending on the call flow.

Regarding the address parameter, that is used when you want to overwrite 
the address indicated by RTPProxy. This is used mainly for setups where 
RTPProxy is behind NAT and the address inidcated is the private one. You 
should swap this IP with the public advertised one.

Best regards,

Răzvan Crainea
OpenSIPS Solutions

On 11/08/2016 09:51 PM, Robert Dyck wrote:
> Thank you
> Assuming rtpproxy was started with IPV4 as the first address and IPV6 as the
> second, then in the NAT scenario, are the II flags mandatory in offer/answer?
> Slightly off topic, what sort of scenario would require the address parameter
> for offer/answer?
> On November 8, 2016 09:57:30 AM Răzvan Crainea wrote:
>> Hi, Robert!
>> See my answers inline.
>> Best regards,
>> Răzvan Crainea
>> OpenSIPS Solutions
>> www.opensips-solutions.com
>> On 11/08/2016 02:15 AM, Robert Dyck wrote:
>>> I have some question regarding rtpproxy capabilities in relation to
>>> IPV4-IPV6 interworking.
>>> The articles I have read say that you need to assign an address from each
>>> address family to rtpproxy. They go on to say that rtpproxy will then be
>>> in
>>> bridged mode. Others define bridge mode as assigning two interfaces to
>>> rtpproxy.
>> As long as you have RTPProxy listening on two IPs, you have it set in
>> bridge mode. It doesn't matther whether one of them is IPv6, or both are.
>>> If the IPV4 and IPV6 addresses are on the same interface, is the rtpproxy
>>> indeed in bridged mode? Should one avoid the use of engage_rtpproxy?
>> Yes, as stated above, RTPProxy is in bridged mode and you should avoid
>> using engage_rtpproxy(). That's because the function can't know/decide
>> which interface is which and cannot map with the RTPProxy's one.
>>> Assuming that IPV4- IPV6 interworking is actually possible using opensips
>>> and rtpproxy, does that mean that an instance of rtpproxy is not
>>> available to enable NAT traversal - would NAT traversal require using
>>> another instance of rtpproxy using a single IPV4 address?
>> No, you don't need an extra instance - a single instance will do both
>> bridging and nat traversal.
>>> Furthermore is the multihome parameter relevant to IPV4-IPV6 interworking
>>> if opensips only listens on one interface?
>> The multihome parameter is only relevant for OpenSIPS, it doesn't
>> influence RTPProxy's behavior at all.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

More information about the Users mailing list