I don't know if there's a document about this, but in my opinion you will not
encounter any problem with the incrementation.
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Nitin
Kapoor
Sent: woensdag 9 maart 2011 8:25
To
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
> well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP
On 03/08/2011 03:48 PM, Nitin Kapoor wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
> well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
> session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
> time SDP is
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Ses
>>2. Just for double confirmation is it normal that the port "from
which" I send my
>>RTP is irrelevant
It is not normal.
It is not totally irrelevant.
For NAT traversal "symmetric RTP" is important.
See section 4 of tfc 4961: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4961.txt
Also some equipment may require
Hi Dale,
thank you for the valuable info, I am sorry with my terminology that I made
the mistake in explaining.
1. As of now I can say that the port named in the SDP that I receive is the
port "to which" I send my RTP (this is no problem and works perfectly fine
when i use this as destination port
