On 24.04.23 10:29, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > >> On 24 Apr 2023, at 10:02, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 24, 2023, at 2:46 AM, Henning Westerholt <h...@gilawa.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> actually, this also documented in the kamailio modules readme: >>> >>> https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.5.x/modules/rtpengine.html#rtpengine.f.rtpengine_manage >>> >>> "- If reply to INVITE with code >= 300 do rtpengine_delete()" >> Yeah, it is. >> >> But what I think Benoît was really getting at is a question not addressed by >> the documentation or the source code: do I really want to 'delete' for _any_ >> >= 300 reply code, or are there corner cases, like 488 for a reinvite (where >> the standards say the call must continue according to previous parameters if >> a reinvite fails)? And if so, are there any others, or is 488 truly it? > Agree that the reinvite case is interesting, exactly because of the possible > fallback to original state. > > I guess there are a number of possible codes, like a timeout (408) or system > problem (5xx) in addition to the “correct” code 488 where fallback could > happen.
rtpengine_manage() should be used in failure_route only when knowing that the call is failing completely. In failure route it should not be used for the purpose of an offer, that is for branch_route usage. The rtpengine offer()/answer()/delete() functions are there to use when specific needs pop up. Of course, then config conditions can be used to exclude cases as needed. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference - June 5-7, 2023 - www.kamailioworld.com __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-le...@lists.kamailio.org Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
