p.beaumont at hatsoffs...
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:13 am Post subject: [asterisk-users] Bridge configuration in Asterisk 13 [Spam s |
 |
|
Thank you once again Richard. I think that covers all my confusion.
Regards,
Patrick.
From: Richard Mudgett <rmudgett@digium.com (rmudgett@digium.com)>
Reply-To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com (asterisk-users@lists.digium.com)>
Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 21:48
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com (asterisk-users@lists.digium.com)>
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Bridge configuration in Asterisk 13 [Spam score:8%] [Spam score:8%]
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Patrick Beaumont <p.beaumont@hatsoffsoftware.co.uk (p.beaumont@hatsoffsoftware.co.uk)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Thanks Richard. This is exactly the answer I was looking for.
I'm now assuming that Asterisk 11 was using it's equivalent "bridge_simple" but I was getting confused because the only bridge module I saw in modules.conf was bridge_softmix. When I upgraded to Asterisk13 that would have been the only bridge getting loaded at first.
Is it expected that if bridge_softmix handled a normal two party call then MOH would no longer function?
|
That is correct. bridge_softmix is optimized for multi-party conferencing where passing
control frames such as hold/unhold to other parties in the bridge is not a good idea. For
example, if three parties are in a bridge and if party A pressed its hold button then that
should not necessarily prevent parties B and C from talking to each other. Using
bridge_softmix for a normal two party call is a last resort. It works reasonably well as a
normal two party bridge technology but it is computationally expensive and not intended
for that purpose.
Richard |
|
Search
