Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
Hi, Robert, Does rtpproxy _autobridge work? http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/1.11.x/rtpproxy#id293590 Regards, xiaofeng ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
Hi, Robert! Yes, in cases where you don't need IPv6, use II for those requests. Best regards, Răzvan Crainea OpenSIPS Solutions www.opensips-solutions.com 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@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
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@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
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@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
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@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] Rtpproxy and IPV4 IPV6 interworking
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. 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? 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? Furthermore is the multihome parameter relevant to IPV4-IPV6 interworking if opensips only listens on one interface? Thank you all ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
