[OpenSIPS-Users] Users Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41
kaushik parmar
androidjpc0 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 07:31:22 CEST 2014
Re: Route RTP packets through
Hello Razvan,
Yes i am using "r" as rtpproxy_offer("r","xx.xx.xx.xx");
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:00 PM, <users-request at lists.opensips.org> wrote:
> Send Users mailing list submissions to
> users at lists.opensips.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> users-request at lists.opensips.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> users-owner at lists.opensips.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Route RTP packets through (kaushik parmar)
> 2. Re: Route RTP packets through (R?zvan Crainea)
> 3. binary replication (Tito Cumpen)
> 4. mediaproxy bug with offer answer in different transaction
> (Eric Tamme)
> 5. Re: RabbitMQ Timer Route Not Working (Kneeoh)
> 6. Re: binary replication (Liviu Chircu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:21:24 +0530
> From: kaushik parmar <androidjpc0 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [OpenSIPS-Users] Route RTP packets through
> To: devel at lists.opensips.org, users at lists.opensips.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGzPE1-w0CXqURBPByHwEF_fRdabkpmrVT+tX0tcSjqFdxV7zA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello ,
>
> I am using opensips and rtpproxy for sip and rtp proxy server. Here problem
> is rtpproxy is sending rtp packets on private ip address and so packet
> lost.
>
> How to use nat so 66.33.66.256 can transfer rtp packets on nated ip instead
> of private ip network that available in SDP.
>
> *Current Scenario : *
>
> Peer1(public IP) opensips+rtpproxy Voip Switch Peer1(public
> IP)
>
> 49.91.256.235 66.33.66.256
> 78.20.56.23 192.168.1.50
>
> | | RTP (G729) |
> |
>
> | RTP (G729) |<-------------------| |
>
> |--------------------->| RTP (G729) |
> |
>
> | |--------------------------------->|
>
>
>
> *Actual Scenario Should be : *
>
>
>
> Peer1(public IP) opensips+rtpproxy Voip Switch Peer1(public
> IP)
>
> 49.91.256.235 66.33.66.256
> 78.20.56.23 192.168.1.50
>
> | | RTP (G729) |
> |
>
> | RTP (G729) |<-------------------| |
>
> |--------------------->| RTP (G729) |
> |
>
> | RTP (G729)
> |---------------------------------->| |
>
> |<---------------------| | |
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Kaushik Parmar
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140611/3a12849d/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:52:15 +0300
> From: R?zvan Crainea <razvan at opensips.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Route RTP packets through
> To: users at lists.opensips.org
> Message-ID: <539842EF.1080001 at opensips.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi, Kaushik!
>
> Are you using the "r" flag for rtpproxy_offer/answer() functions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Razvan Crainea
> OpenSIPS Core Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 06/11/2014 02:51 PM, kaushik parmar wrote:
> > Hello ,
> >
> > I am using opensips and rtpproxy for sip and rtp proxy server. Here
> > problem is rtpproxy is sending rtp packets on private ip address and so
> > packet lost.
> >
> > How to use nat so 66.33.66.256 can transfer rtp packets on nated ip
> > instead of private ip network that available in SDP.
> >
> > *Current Scenario :*
> >
> >
> > Peer1(public IP) opensips+rtpproxy Voip SwitchPeer1(public
> IP)
> >
> > 49.91.256.235 66.33.66.256
> 78.20.56.23 192.168.1.50
> >
> >
> > | |RTP (G729) | |
> >
> > |RTP (G729) |<-------------------||
> >
> > |--------------------->|RTP (G729) | |
> >
> > | |--------------------------------->|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Actual Scenario Should be :*
> >
> > *
> > *
> >
> > *
> > *
> >
> > Peer1(public IP) opensips+rtpproxy Voip SwitchPeer1(public
> IP)
> >
> > 49.91.256.235 66.33.66.256
> 78.20.56.23 192.168.1.50
> >
> >
> > | |RTP (G729) |
> |
> >
> >
> > |RTP (G729) |<-------------------||
> >
> >
> > |--------------------->|RTP (G729) | |
> >
> > |RTP (G729) |---------------------------------->|
> |
> >
> >
> > |<---------------------| | |
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Kaushik Parmar
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Users at lists.opensips.org
> > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:27:58 -0400
> From: Tito Cumpen <tito at xsvoce.com>
> Subject: [OpenSIPS-Users] binary replication
> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list <users at lists.opensips.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CANZPVB4ou3Jg0P=qStgzTaHq2HxrBiFQWhwFXarVJV=
> znb1uAw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Group,
>
> Playing with the idea of using binary replication. Just curious if anyone
> can provide a use case. Would this coupled with a virtual ip? I am not
> certain how the instance that accepts replications would take over.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tito
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140611/f73c5049/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:53:47 -0600
> From: Eric Tamme <eric.tamme at onsip.com>
> Subject: [OpenSIPS-Users] mediaproxy bug with offer answer in
> different transaction
> To: users at lists.opensips.org
> Message-ID: <53986D7B.70007 at onsip.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Sa?l, and others,
>
> We have discovered a bug in mediaproxy where it does not recognize an
> answer that is part of a different transaction, this is caused by how
> mediaproxy tracks offer/answer based on cseq. Here is the example offer
> answer scenario from RFC3262 that does not work.
>
> UAC INVITE Cseq: 1 (no SDP offer) ->
>
> <- 183 with SDP offer
>
> PRACK CSeq: 2, Rseq: 1 with SDP answer->
>
> Because the PRACK is a different transaction, and has a different CSeq
> than the offer, mediaproxy assumes it is a new offer, rather than an
> answer.
>
> Can you offer any thoughts on what might be the best way to fix this
> issue? We are happy to work on a patch as well - but would like to have
> input from the maintainers so that we can be sure it would be accepted
> upstream.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kneeoh <kneeoh at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] RabbitMQ Timer Route Not Working
> To: R?zvan Crainea <razvan at opensips.org>, Opensips Users
> <users at lists.opensips.org>
> Message-ID:
> <1402506511.64730.YahooMailNeo at web122606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Is there an unsubscribe option? I'm going to try removing haproxy and just
> let the vip be shared among the rabbit cluster nodes and see if that tricks
> it.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:01 AM, R?zvan Crainea <razvan at opensips.org>
> wrote:
> Hi, Kneeoh!
>
> I think that the only solution that would work properly was your first
> approach. However, since this is not yet implemented, all I can think of
> is an external process that periodically test if the node is up. If it
> is not, unsubscribe it and re-subscribe the second node.
>
> PS: I haven't really used haproxy so I have no idea how it works.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Razvan Crainea
> OpenSIPS Core Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
>
>
> On 06/06/2014 06:15 PM, Kneeoh wrote:
> > Hi Razvan, thank you for the reply. I don't necessarily need expiration
> of subscriptions to rabbit or the timer route per se. I'm just trying to
> figure out (with the existing capabilities) how to make opensips fail to
> another member in the rabbit cluster in the event that the current node
> dies. My first thought was that you could simply stack entry points like:
> >
> > subscribe_event("E_ACC_CDR", "rabbitmq:rabbitmq:rabbit at 192.168.2.30;
> rabbitmq:rabbit at 192.168.2.31;rabbitmq:rabbit at 192.168.2.33/cdr1")
> >
> > However, it sounds like that's not in the present implementation of the
> rabbit module.
> >
> > So my second thought was to trick opensips and put HAProxy between it
> and Rabbit, which works, but if I fail an HAProxy via corosync to the other
> HAproxy something with the subscription breaks. Since it looked like the
> two options were either put the subscribes in the startup route (only
> happens once so probably won't failover) OR use the timer route to
> subscribe (which is what i'm doing) I figured that in the event of an
> HAProxy failure, I might miss a few messages but on the next timer fire
> opensips would resubscribe to haproxy which would relay that to the
> appropriate rabbit server (I haven't failed over any rabbit servers in this
> scenario so haproxy2 is talking to the same rabbit server as haproxy1. All
> i'm doing is killing haproxy1 right now and letting the VIP go to
> haproxy2). However it doesn't look like this is working and I can't tell if
> its because the subscription isn't happening, OR it is happening but
> opensips sees it already exists in the
> >? subscribers list and does nothing (I think this is the case). If this
> IS the case perhaps a solution would be to kill the subscriber entry on new
> subscribe. If I'm way off, let me know, I'd really like to figure this out.
> Am I going about this all wrong? How would you handle a rabbit node failure?
> >
> > Regards
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:29:55 +0300
> From: Liviu Chircu <liviu at opensips.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] binary replication
> To: users at lists.opensips.org
> Message-ID: <53989213.6020409 at opensips.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hello Tito,
>
> Both dialog and user location replication were actually designed to work
> with VIPs only! From the moment the "receiving" instance takes over, it
> should have the same pool of registered users as instance #1, and it
> should be able to process all existing dialogues.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Liviu Chircu
> OpenSIPS Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 06/11/2014 03:27 PM, Tito Cumpen wrote:
> > Group,
> >
> > Playing with the idea of using binary replication. Just curious if
> > anyone can provide a use case. Would this coupled with a virtual ip?
> > I am not certain how the instance that accepts replications would
> > take over.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tito
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Users at lists.opensips.org
> > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140611/624e6646/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> End of Users Digest, Vol 71, Issue 41
> *************************************
>
--
Kind regards,
Kaushik Parmar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140612/d1e67838/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Users
mailing list