VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lconroy at insensate.c... Guest
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:46 pm Post subject: [Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP (was Re: Freeswitch doesnt tra |
|
|
Hi Ken, Conor, folks,
Along time ago in a land far away ... the [very] early history of SIP was tied up with a bunch of other multimedia SxP things.
The big driver at that time was being able to do conferencing and media distribution -- after all, voice calls could be done with H.323 et al. The SDP (and SIP main part headers) were quite simple and small [**]. This was a message based scheme, and UDP is a messaging transport, as opposed to TCP which is a stream transport.
IIRC, mapping from PSTN schemes (again, message-based systems) to UDP seemed simpler.
TCP required maintaining transport session state in gateways, and the stacks in those gateways were primitive, to say the least.
Despite that, folk pushing for TCP to be mandatory were told that it was considered 2nd class and should not be mandatory to implement); that was in '97 as I recall.
Then (late 98 -> 2001) cable labs & 3GPP decided SIP was easier to bend to their will than H.323/224/..., and the number of headers grew like topsy, the complexity of the maintained state just kept on building, and we ran into fragment problems.
Quick fix was header compression, but that ran into company-political issues in 3GPP and anyway couldn't keep up with the 5,000 new headers there seemed to be per week. THEN there was a drift away from UDP and towards TCP for purely practical reasons, and TCP became mandatory to implement (but NOT, of course mandatory to use, as there were any number of bits of kit out there that didn't have support for it .
Long story, but in short -- with the continued introduction of bloat (e.g., IMHO all the web RTC driven stuff) UDP is getting VERY tight on MTU limits. That shouldn't be a problem but is because frags are not dealt with well by end systems (as customer router/end system IP stacks tend to be nasty brutish and short on development).
SO ... TCP has advantages (as long as your system can handle many parallel TCP sessions), is marginally slower on initial set up, but doesn't have to maintain the t30 et al timer stuff. From memory, getting the TCP stack tweaked for ultra-high load systems was a pain and led to obscure behaviour, but available TCP stacks seem generally better now.
UDP was simpler to map to message based systems at gateways, didn't have to use good IP stacks as you were rolling your own logic, but given the lard that is SIP/SDP now, that's the least of your coding worries.
For carriers, I understand why they have a reflex against maintaining state, and they're using kit that is "mature". It's hard to justify replacing kit that's familiar, has a management UI your staff know, and had its costs amortised away years ago; VoIP is not a high profit service so the bean counters WILL ask.
=> TCP may be 'better', but UDP is in kit that isn't going away soon.
all the best,
Lawrence
**: Remember, at the time ('97-'9 Henning Schulzrinne was teaching at Columbia University a post-grad course on IP comms during which he gave "implement a SIP-based voice call system" as a [two week] homework exercise, followed by interops between the clients. It had to be simple (and he was a "hard task master" [or words to that effect]; he knew that UDP forced all the timer logic to be coded as well).
On 15 Feb 2016, at 16:35, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Quote: | The problem still exists for expanding SDPs… using TCP to the user/device then trying to send the same thing out to the carrier over UDP is what was causing the problem in the first place… so the decision was made to prevent those problems we’ll only offer what the device offers and not expand the number of codecs even further increasing the already bloated SDPs to the point where they fragment over UDP and get dropped…
So is TCP better for some things, yes it is, however, the lack of market wide support for it with carriers makes it a pain in the ass even tho the RFCs specifically say you MUST support both UDP and TCP for SIP, but certain VoIP softwares out there only implemented UDP many years ago and now we’re stuck with that legacy
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 10:30 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch doesnt transcode
True,
But freeswitch talking to the carriers is almost always UPD.
However, freeswitch talking to the clients I would say TCP would be idea. So its almost like freeswitch is trancoding from TCP to UDP too
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem isn’t necessarily the devices, but there is also the carriers…
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 10:04 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch doesnt transcode
So if the device supports TCP, is there any reason not to use TCP. AKA is there any reason to keep on using UDP. TCP seems superior.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
any device that even remotely follows sip
specs supports TCP. Most phones I have seen do.
On Sunday, February 14, 2016, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
So is TCP the preferred method of doing SIP these days? I like TCP with endpoints as they always break through firewalls and we never seem to have in issue with TCP. However UDP is a headache. So if you have the choice why not do TCP? I realize some devices only support UDP, but the majority of SIP phones out there today do support TCP.
Plus if you use TLS for encryption and security then you are already using TCP right?
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
This behavior changed a while ago. This was dictates by ever growing SDPs and exceeding MTUs causing udp fragmentation. Udp does not deal with fragmentation and everyone refuses to fully implement sip over tcp for some reason even tho a ton of things support it and the RFCs require it
Sent from my iPhone
Quote: | On Feb 14, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Rajil Saraswat <rajil.s@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, after setting media_mix_inbound_outbound_codecs=true,
transcoding happens automatically. I remember not setting this
variable in other installations and transcoding used to work out of
the box. Is media_mix_inbound_outbound_codecs=true default in
Freeswitch?
Quote: | On 14 February 2016 at 13:56, Russell Treleaven <rtreleaven@bunnykick.ca> wrote:
fyi https://freeswitch.org/confluence/display/FREESWITCH/Codec+Negotiation
Quote: | On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rajil Saraswat <rajil.s@gmail.com> wrote:
The siptrace is at http://pastebin.com/xiGqtj1Y
The call is being made from 303 (Android/CSipsimple with OPUS codec)
to 208 (pjsua test client with PCMU codec). The error is on line 545.
On 14 February 2016 at 11:28, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: | How you originate the call? Is a bridge? >From which phone?
Also, please pastebin the complete sip trace (from start of leg A to end
of
both legs) and put here a link to pastebin
Il 14/Feb/2016 03:54, "Rajil Saraswat" <rajil.s@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Quote: |
Hello,
I have a remote sip phone (Linksys SPA3102) which only supports PCMU.
When I call to this remote sip phone i get a 406 error that opus is
not supported as shown by the sip trace below. However, if I force the
codec to absolute like this
{absolute_codec_string='PCMU,PCMA'}sofia/internal/303@192.168.1.5
the call works fine.
Is there anyway I can make FreeSWITCH to automatically transcode
without forcing the codec string in the dial plan?
The codec preferences is set as global_codec_prefs=OPUS,PCMU,PCMA and
outbound_codec_prefs=PCMU,PCMA,GSM
---------------------------siptrace--------------------------------
recv 333 bytes from udp/[192.168.1.5]:5060 at 08:02:16.368499:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP/2.0 406 Not Acceptable
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.1.111;rport=5060;received=192.168.1.111;branch=z9hG4bKeS356tttajjej
Call-ID: 00ff246a-4d66-1234-f4b2-74d02b7a3124
From: "202" <sip:202@192.168.1.111>;tag=DFX0FUvr2vNcm
To: <sip:303@192.168.1.5>;tag=htMF9ckdglw3EJRZaILd6XWt4uVKAO8q
CSeq: 87372504 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
send 324 bytes to udp/[192.168.1.5]:5060 at 08:02:16.368591:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACK sip:303@192.168.1.5 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.111;rport;branch=z9hG4bKeS356tttajjej
Max-Forwards: 68
From: "202" <sip:202@192.168.1.111>;tag=DFX0FUvr2vNcm
To: <sip:303@192.168.1.5>;tag=htMF9ckdglw3EJRZaILd6XWt4uVKAO8q
Call-ID: 00ff246a-4d66-1234-f4b2-74d02b7a3124
CSeq: 87372504 ACK
Content-Length: 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-02-14 08:02:16.356283 [DEBUG] sofia.c:6760 Channel
sofia/internal/303@192.168.1.5 entering state [terminated][406]
2016-02-14 08:02:16.356283 [NOTICE] sofia.c:7779 Hangup
sofia/internal/303@192.168.1.5 [CS_CONSUME_MEDIA]
[SERVICE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED]
Thanks
Rajil
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
anthony.minessale at g... Guest
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:28 pm Post subject: [Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP (was Re: Freeswitch doesnt tra |
|
|
With SDP getting bigger and bigger with presence packates and large invites with many codecs or video and WebRTC TCP will become mandatory.The spec on when to use TCP is very arcane.
Use UDP first unless the packet is > MTU, change to TCP. If the TCP times out (1 to 10 min) retry UDP anyway.
With some fun mixed in like you MUST be under the MTU and you also MUST support packets over udp up to 64kb.
Implementing that used to cause communications with asterisk to take forever because they only did UDP so bigger SDP packets would timeout on TCP first and everyone called it a bug.
If you anticipate using presence or really big packets use TCP. If you use WebRTC its already TCP.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org (krice@freeswitch.org)> wrote:
Quote: | Lawrence,
Well Said!
There is one upside., atleast Microsoft pushed the TCP stuff hard with Lync
so maybe we'll start seeing more traction there...
In reguards to the WebRTC stuff, imho SIP over WebRTC is a bit heavy
handed... something simple like Verto provides a lower overhead (in the
browser) and allows for push/pull eventing... wish we would see wider
adoption of such things in the near to mid terms
-----Original Message-----
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)] On Behalf Of Lawrence
Conroy
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 12:45 PM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org)>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] TCP vs UDP (was Re: Freeswitch doesnt
transcode)
Hi Ken, Conor, folks,
 Along time ago in a land far away ... the [very] early history of SIP was
tied up with a bunch of other multimedia SxP things.
The big driver at that time was being able to do conferencing and media
distribution -- after all, voice calls could be done with H.323 et al. The
SDP (and SIP main part headers) were quite simple and small [**]. This was a
message based scheme, and UDP is a messaging transport, as opposed to TCP
which is a stream transport.
IIRC, mapping from PSTN schemes (again, message-based systems) to UDP seemed
simpler.
TCP required maintaining transport session state in gateways, and the stacks
in those gateways were primitive, to say the least.
Despite that, folk pushing for TCP to be mandatory were told that it was
considered 2nd class and should not be mandatory to implement); that was in
'97 as I recall.
Then (late 98 -> 2001) cable labs & 3GPP decided SIP was easier to bend to
their will than H.323/224/..., and the number of headers grew like topsy,
the complexity of the maintained state just kept on building, and we ran
into fragment problems.
Quick fix was header compression, but that ran into company-political issues
in 3GPP and anyway couldn't keep up with the 5,000 new headers there seemed
to be per week. THEN there was a drift away from UDP and towards TCP for
purely practical reasons, and TCP became mandatory to implement (but NOT, of
course mandatory to use, as there were any number of bits of kit out there
that didn't have support for it .
Long story, but in short -- with the continued introduction of bloat (e.g.,
IMHO all the web RTC driven stuff) UDP is getting VERY tight on MTU limits.
That shouldn't be a problem but is because frags are not dealt with well by
end systems (as customer router/end system IP stacks tend to be nasty
brutish and short on development).
SO ... TCP has advantages (as long as your system can handle many parallel
TCP sessions), is marginally slower on initial set up, but doesn't have to
maintain the t30 et al timer stuff. From memory, getting the TCP stack
tweaked for ultra-high load systems was a pain and led to obscure behaviour,
but available TCP stacks seem generally better now.
UDP was simpler to map to message based systems at gateways, didn't have to
use good IP stacks as you were rolling your own logic, but given the lard
that is SIP/SDP now, that's the least of your coding worries.
For carriers, I understand why they have a reflex against maintaining state,
and they're using kit that is "mature". It's hard to justify replacing kit
that's familiar, has a management UI your staff know, and had its costs
amortised away years ago; VoIP is not a high profit service so the bean
counters WILL ask.
=> TCP may be 'better', but UDP is in kit that isn't going away soon.
all the best,
 Lawrence
**: Remember, at the time ('97-'9 Henning Schulzrinne was teaching at
Columbia University a post-grad course on IP comms during which he gave
"implement a SIP-based voice call system" as a [two week] homework exercise,
followed by interops between the clients. It had to be simple (and he was a
"hard task master" [or words to that effect]; he knew that UDP forced all
the timer logic to be coded as well).
On 15 Feb 2016, at 16:35, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org (krice@freeswitch.org)> wrote:
Quote: | The problem still exists for expanding SDPs. using TCP to the
user/device then trying to send the same thing out to the carrier over
UDP is what was causing the problem in the first place. so the
decision was made to prevent those problems we'll only offer what the
device offers and not expand the number of codecs even further
increasing the already bloated SDPs to the point where they fragment
over UDP and get dropped.
So is TCP better for some things, yes it is, however, the lack of
market wide support for it with carriers makes it a pain in the ass
even tho the RFCs specifically say you MUST support both UDP and TCP
for SIP, but certain VoIP softwares out there only implemented UDP
many years ago and now we're stuck with that legacy
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)] On Behalf Of
Colton Conor
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 10:30 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org)>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch doesnt transcode
True,
But freeswitch talking to the carriers is almost always UPD.
However, freeswitch talking to the clients I would say TCP would be
idea. So its almost like freeswitch is trancoding from TCP to UDP too
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org (krice@freeswitch.org)> wrote:
The problem isn't necessarily the devices, but there is also the
carriers.
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org)] On Behalf Of
Colton Conor
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 10:04 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org (freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org)>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch doesnt transcode
So if the device supports TCP, is there any reason not to use TCP. AKA is
| there any reason to keep on using UDP. TCP seems superior.
Quote: |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com (mike@jerris.com)> wrote:
any device that even remotely follows sip specs supports TCP. Most
phones I have seen do.
On Sunday, February 14, 2016, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com (colton.conor@gmail.com)> wrote:
So is TCP the preferred method of doing SIP these days? I like TCP with
| endpoints as they always break through firewalls and we never seem to have
in issue with TCP. However UDP is a headache. So if you have the choice why
not do TCP? I realize some devices only support UDP, but the majority of SIP
phones out there today do support TCP.
Quote: |
Plus if you use TLS for encryption and security then you are already using
| TCP right?
Quote: |
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org (krice@freeswitch.org)> wrote:
This behavior changed a while ago. This was dictates by ever growing
SDPs and exceeding MTUs causing udp fragmentation. Udp does not deal
with fragmentation and everyone refuses to fully implement sip over
tcp for some reason even tho a ton of things support it and the RFCs
require it
Sent from my iPhone
Quote: | On Feb 14, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Rajil Saraswat <rajil.s@gmail.com (rajil.s@gmail.com)> wrote:
Thanks, after setting media_mix_inbound_outbound_codecs=true,
transcoding happens automatically. I remember not setting this
variable in other installations and transcoding used to work out of
the box. Is media_mix_inbound_outbound_codecs=true default in
Freeswitch?
Quote: | On 14 February 2016 at 13:56, Russell Treleaven
|
|
| <rtreleaven@bunnykick.ca (rtreleaven@bunnykick.ca)> wrote:
wrote:
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: |
The siptrace is at http://pastebin.com/xiGqtj1Y
The call is being made from 303 (Android/CSipsimple with OPUS
codec) to 208 (pjsua test client with PCMU codec). The error is on
|
|
|
| line 545.
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: |
On 14 February 2016 at 11:28, Giovanni Maruzzelli
<gmaruzz@gmail.com (gmaruzz@gmail.com)>
wrote:
Quote: | How you originate the call? Is a bridge? >From which phone?
Also, please pastebin the complete sip trace (from start of leg A
to end of both legs) and put here a link to pastebin
Il 14/Feb/2016 03:54, "Rajil Saraswat" <rajil.s@gmail.com (rajil.s@gmail.com)> ha
|
|
|
|
| scritto:
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: |
Hello,
I have a remote sip phone (Linksys SPA3102) which only supports
|
|
|
|
|
| PCMU.
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | When I call to this remote sip phone i get a 406 error that opus
is not supported as shown by the sip trace below. However, if I
force the codec to absolute like this
{absolute_codec_string='PCMU,PCMA'}sofia/internal/303@192.168.1. ([email]303@192.168.1.[/email])
5
the call works fine.
Is there anyway I can make FreeSWITCH to automatically transcode
without forcing the codec string in the dial plan?
The codec preferences is set as
global_codec_prefs=OPUS,PCMU,PCMA and
outbound_codec_prefs=PCMU,PCMA,GSM
---------------------------siptrace-----------------------------
---
recv 333 bytes from udp/[192.168.1.5]:5060 at 08:02:16.368499:
|
|
|
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Â Â SIP/2.0 406 Not Acceptable
  Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
|
|
|
|
|
| 192.168.1.111;rport=5060;received=192.168.1.111;branch=z9hG4bKeS356tttajjej
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Â Â Call-ID: 00ff246a-4d66-1234-f4b2-74d02b7a3124
  From: "202" <sip:202@192.168.1.111 ([email]sip%3A202@192.168.1.111[/email])>;tag=DFX0FUvr2vNcm
  To: <sip:303@192.168.1.5 ([email]sip%3A303@192.168.1.5[/email])>;tag=htMF9ckdglw3EJRZaILd6XWt4uVKAO8q
  CSeq: 87372504 INVITE
  Content-Length: 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | Quote: | -------- send 324 bytes to udp/[192.168.1.5]:5060 at
08:02:16.368591:
|
|
|
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org (consulting@freeswitch.org)
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org (FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org)
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
consulting@freeswitch.org (consulting@freeswitch.org)
http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites
http://www.freeswitch.org
http://confluence.freeswitch.org
http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org (FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org)
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
|
--
Anthony Minessale II    ♬ @anthmfs  ♬ @FreeSWITCH  ♬
☞ http://freeswitch.org/  ☞ http://cluecon.com/  ☞ http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH
☞ irc.freenode.net #freeswitch ☞ http://freeswitch.org/g+
ClueCon Weekly Development CallÂ
☎ sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org ([email]sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org[/email])  ☎ +19193869900Â
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XXgW34t40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLaDpGQuZDA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|