[OpenSIPS-Users] [OpenSIPS-Devel] Fwd: RTPproxy project

Thu Jun 12 23:36:18 CEST 2014

Brett, on the HA/carrier-grade side there is little-advertized middle-layer
component called "rtp_cluster", which in essence is load-balancing,
transparent dispatcher that can be inserted in between some
call-controlling component like OpenSIPS or Sippy B2BUA and bunch of RTPP
instances running on the same or multiple nodes. From the point of view of
that OpenSIPS it's just another RTPP instance.

And it handles all logic necessary to load-balance incoming requests
between online instances plus it can handle dynamic re-confiduration of the
cluster and track individual nodes going up and down. The code is pretty
usable, we have it deployed for several customers and it's being actively
developed as well. We have it working reliably controlling up to 30-40 RTPP
instances scattered over at least 5 nodes.

http://sourceforge.net/p/sippy/sippy/ci/master/tree/rtp_cluster/

We have at least one pretty well known service provider whose name starts
with capital V using it in combination with OpenSIPS to load balance RTP
traffic via bunch of Amazon EC2 instances.

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Brett Nemeroff <brett at nemeroff.com> wrote:

> Just wanted to add my 0.02 here..
>
> I totally agree with Bogdan. For the applications where opensips + a RTP
> relay make sense, HA and persistence are much more important.
>
> WebRTC and ICE are kinda applications in of themselves. And although these
> applications are going to grow in popularity, the "legacy" needs for an RTP
> relay are still massively prevalent in the space. A general push towards
> "Carrier Grade", resiliency and redundancy I think is much better for the
> project as a whole.
>
> Not only that, consider that applications requiring ICE or WebRTC will
> greatly benefit from HA / persistence, but not so much the other way around
> :)
>
> YMMV
>
> -Brett
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> As always, the truth is in the middle.
>>
>> I agree RTPP is behind on certain things (and this is why we want to do
>> them), but on the other hand it is a good platform with other good features
>> (missing on the other relays). RTPP has better ability in individually
>> controlling the stream (audio /video), ability to set timeouts and onhold
>> with no conflicts, ability to generates events on timeout, more flexibility
>> in handling symmetric / asymmetric NATs, ability to do media injection
>> (playback), ability to do call recording
>>
>> What neither  mediaproxy, nor rtpengine have is a mechanism for
>> implementing RTP failover (for ongoing calls) or restart persistence . This
>> is something we want to look into. I would love to have ICE and WebRTC on
>> my media relay, for the HA and persistence are more important I would say.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>> On 24.05.2014 01:59, Muhammad Shahzad Shafi wrote:
>>
>> To be honest, i have stopped using rtpproxy for over 2 years now. It is
>> not evolving as fast as it should be, specially in the context of ICE and
>> WebRTC technologies.
>>
>> I would like to suggest that opensips team should consider adding support
>> for rtpengine from SIPWise,
>>
>> https://github.com/sipwise/rtpengine
>>
>> For now mediaproxy from AG Projects is the only good choice for handling
>> media in opensips with ICE support (though it still lacks WebRTC features).
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2014-05-23 14:55, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>
>> Going for a public exposure on this question to Maxim, maybe we will get
>> an answer here.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: RTPproxy project  Date: Mon,
>> 14 Apr 2014 15:03:31 +0300  From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu  To: Maxim Sobolev
>> CC: Razvan Crainea
>>
>> Hello Maxim,
>>
>> Long time, no talks, but I hope everything is fine on your side.
>>
>> I'm reaching you in order to ask about your future plans in regards to
>> the rtpproxy project? We see no much activity around it and other media
>> relays are popping around.
>>
>> RTPP is an essential component for us, we invested a lot of work, we
>> have many patches (extensions) for it (which we want to push to the
>> public tree, but there is no answer on this) and we are also looking for
>> investing a lot into big future plans (as adding more functionalities).
>>
>> Now, my question is - what is your commitment and disponibility for the
>> RTPP project ? depending on that we what to re-position ourselves, as we
>> do not want to waste time and work on things which are out of control.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>>   --
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>> Muhammad Shahzad
>> -----------------------------------
>> CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS)
>> CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA)
>> Cell: +49 176 99 83 10 85
>> MSN: shari_786pk at hotmail.com
>> Email: shaheryarkh at googlemail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>

-- 
Maksym Sobolyev
Sippy Software, Inc.
Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts
Tel (Canada): +1-778-783-0474
Tel (Toll-Free): +1-855-747-7779
Fax: +1-866-857-6942
Web: http://www.sippysoft.com
MSN: sales at sippysoft.com
Skype: SippySoft
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140612/4a38c641/attachment-0001.htm>