[OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking

Răzvan Crainea razvan at opensips.org
Wed Nov 9 18:37:40 CET 2016

Hi, Robert!

Yes, in cases where you don't need IPv6, use II for those requests.

Best regards,

Răzvan Crainea
OpenSIPS Solutions

On 11/09/2016 07:12 PM, Robert Dyck wrote:
> I should have described the scenario in more detail.
> The rtproxy is in bridge mode because two addresses were specified. This was to
> accommodate IPV4 - IPV6 interworking. However the rtpproxy is also to be used
> for NAT traversal. This is not a bridge in the physical sense because there
> only one interface. For NAT traversal the IPV6 address should be ignored. Am I
> correct in thinking that one should use either II flags or EE flags depending on
> the order of the addresses given to rtpproxy?
> Thank you for taking the time for this.
> On November 9, 2016 12:23:09 PM you wrote:
>> 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
>> www.opensips-solutions.com
>> 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