Summary:	ASTERISK-24192: Multihomed asterisk b2b calls on different networks
Reporter:	James Cordell (stakoverflow128)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2014-08-08 06:57:09	Date Closed:	2014-08-28 08:03:04
Priority:	Minor	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Addons/General Addons/New Feature
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:	Linux general asterisk 1.6.1.20	Attachments:	( 0) sip_routing_multihomed.patch ( 1) sip_routing_multihomed.patch ( 2) sip_routing_multihomed2.patch
Description:	The Problem Asterisk has to route RTP to different network gateways. This in effect making asterisk multi-homed. A multi homed asterisk box needs to establish a back to back call from one network to another. Allowing the RTP from Asterisk to go to the correct gateway. Thus a call from one network, to another, for example Asterisk binds on address 0.0.0.0 for therefore leaving it to the default route to decide which default gateway is in the routing table to make the decision. This patch complete with policy routing routes permits a multi homed asterisk box to bridge a call in such a manor. The first leg of the call can be on one network interface and the second leg on a different interface.
Comments:	By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2014-08-08 16:45:27.928-0500 Hi! I noticed you marked this issue as a regression. If the patch is for a new feature and not concerning a bug that represents a regression in behavior it shouldn't be marked as regression. I'm putting this in Waiting On Feedback until there is a patch attached. You might also review the [Code Review process|https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Code+Review] and put the patch up on reviewboard to get comments. Be sure to link the reviewboard URL here on the issue. By: James Cordell (stakoverflow128) 2014-08-13 05:33:31.435-0500 How do I upload a patch? By: James Cordell (stakoverflow128) 2014-08-19 03:43:35.049-0500 Hello ? does this thing work. I have signed the license agreement why does it not work? By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2014-08-25 16:07:10.165-0500 [~stakoverflow128] you signed the submission license agreement, but it hasn't been processed yet. I'll check with legal, as they are normally processed quickly. After it is processed, you can attach the patch with "More > Attach Files" and make sure to select that the file is a contribution. By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2014-08-26 09:32:12.116-0500 [~stakoverflow128] Your license agreement has been processed. You should be able to attach your contribution with "More > Attach Files" now and then follow the [Code Review process|https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Code+Review].  Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Be sure to press "Enter Feedback" or "Send Back" after you attach the patch and get it on reviewboard. Thanks! By: James Cordell (stakoverflow128) 2014-08-26 09:49:07.409-0500 This patch is quite crude and needs allot of re structuring. However it does server a purpose of allowing a back to back call to take place on a machine with two different routes. One route for one leg and the other route for the other leg. This patch works in conjunction with policy routing and rules.  This patch was written for asterisk 1.6.1.20 By: Matt Jordan (mjordan) 2014-08-26 09:53:43.402-0500 Unfortunately, Asterisk 1.6 is long out of support. Any patch that was made against 1.6 is highly unlikely to apply to any supported branch of Asterisk. While users of 1.6 may find your patch useful, it is not acceptable as a new feature or improvement for Asterisk. New features/improvements must be written against Asterisk trunk for them to be accepted. By: James Cordell (stakoverflow128) 2014-08-26 10:43:11.800-0500 Understood this is mainly for the world at large and I may be tempted to port it at a later date. By: Matt Jordan (mjordan) 2014-08-28 08:03:04.552-0500 I appreciate your desire to contribute back, and to provide a patch that improves Asterisk. However, without a trunk variant, this issue is unlikely to move forward. For now, I'll close out this issue as Incomplete. That doesn't mean that the patch is gone or that the issue is dead, just that it isn't going to be worked without a trunk patch. If you provide one, simply comment on this issue and a bug marshal will be happy to re-open it for you.