El Miércoles, 27 de Enero de 2010, Ovidiu Sas escribió: > It is the expected behavior. You can do that on failure_route (if you arm > one). And if you do redirection based on 3xx, there's no need to > terminated the rtp session and start a new one.
Good point. Terminating the rtpproxy session upon receipt of an error response would break the possibility of using serial forking (in failure_route) with the already opened rtpproxy session (anyhow I think it's better to invoke RtpProxy for each transaction serial/parallel fork). However, IMHO it could be more user-friendly. In case the incoming transaction ends (when Kamailio replies [3456]XX to the UAC) then it makes no sense to leave the rtpproxy session open. Instead, rtpproxy module could terminate it (if it exists). This is: I just mean the case in which Kamailio terminates the incoming transaction, but not the case in which a error response is got from downstream. Opinnions? Thanks a lot. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users