[asterisk-users] Bridge configuration in Asterisk 13 [Spam score:8%] [Spam score:8%]

[Patrick Beaumont]

Thank you once again Richard. I think that covers all my confusion.

Regards,
Patrick.

From: Richard Mudgett <rmudgett at digium.com<mailto:rmudgett at digium.com>>
Reply-To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com<mailto:asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 21:48
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com<mailto:asterisk-users at 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 at hatsoffsoftware.co.uk<mailto:p.beaumont at hatsoffsoftware.co.uk>> wrote:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20141210/8e2c9ce9/attachment.html>