> Because it is an useful option. Only not for this use case. > Because nobody noticed it was badly named when it was applied. > > > Why would it not apply to "rtp" also? > > Because nobody made the UDP socket context a child object of the RTP > context.
So does it still makes sense to have a patch to pass through a RTP "reuseaddr" option to the underlying UDP URL "reuse" option? Documenting the good use cases of course (although I'd start using it for the wrong use case ;-)). If yes I'll resubmit the patch. I'm still planning to have a look on a proper (e.g using only one shared socket) implementation of rtcp-mux (easy one, I already have a PoC working) and RTP Bundle (tougher one). Regards -- Camille _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
