On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> wrote: > 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.
In most of this cases (if not all) the rtp session should not be opened. I like the way it is because I know exactly what's going on (no under the hood decisions). If a session is not closed, I know who to blame ;) Regards, Ovidiu Sas _______________________________________________ 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