[AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequencies

Franceschini Guido <Guido.Franceschini@TILAB.COM> Mon, 30 January 2006 13:23 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3Z03-0007z6-Hp; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:23:19 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F3Z02-0007yX-DJ for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:23:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22096 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:21:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dns1.tilab.com ([163.162.42.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3ZAZ-0003RU-TI for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:34:14 -0500
Received: from iowa2k01a.cselt.it ([163.162.242.201]) by dns1.cselt.it (PMDF V6.0-025 #38895) with ESMTP id <0ITW0046RQI1A3@dns1.cselt.it> for avt@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:22:49 +0100 (MET)
Received: from EXC01A.cselt.it ([163.162.4.198]) by iowa2k01a.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:22:49 +0100
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:22:49 +0100
From: Franceschini Guido <Guido.Franceschini@TILAB.COM>
To: IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Message-id: <F52AC9AADF606D46B13F7F8DBB1F1E9D0177A3DE@EXC01A.cselt.it>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.326
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
Thread-Topic: Issue with different sampling rates
Thread-Index: AcYjIdfHlyiDNpFGRkqPGm/+/HLjlQCUwmuAAAGZq1A=
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2006 13:22:49.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[44199480:01C625A0]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequencies
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org

Dear experts,

I went through an issue that I am not confident to solve by myself, and
for which I would greatly appreciate the advice of this group.

The scenario is: VoIP + DTMF

The issue arose as soon as we introduced WideBand codecs. Indeed, with
SDP we can now offer WB (resolution 16000) as well as NB (resolution
8000) audio codecs, in conjunction with the "telephone-event".
All in a single RTP session.

The SDP offer looks something like:

m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 97 98 99
a=rtpmap:97 AMR/8000
a=rtpmap:98 AMR-WB/16000
a=rtpmap:99 telephone-event/8000

To my knowledge, nothing prevents to negotiate codecs with different
timestamp frequency, thus, e.g. AMR-WB + DTMF
In such a case however we have a problem with RTCP reports, since they
use the RTP timestamp units (thus 8000 or 16000) for computing the
Interarrival Jitter (in SR and RR) and the RTP Timestamp (in SR) fields.


Since each RTCP report block is scoped by a single SSRC, a possible
solution I thougth about is to send data on the different PTs using
different SSRCs (and thus different SN and TS offsets). This is not
obvious (I haven't read about such a constraint anywhere), and also a
bit heavy in terms of RTCP overhead. I have then legacy implementation
using AMR and DTMF only, that share a single SSRC/TSoffset/SNoffset
space, thus I should probably better employ different sets of
SSRC/TSoffset/SNoffset only when multiple resolutions are negotiated.

Another approach that I considered is to use separate sockets for each
resolution, but this would create more issues with the legacy I have
(and is also a constraint that I have not seen anywhere)

Anyway, the usage of DTMF is just a detail, since the problem would
identically occur for any negotiation of audio codecs with different
sampling rates.

Did I miss some rule/constraint here and there?
Is there any other viable/advisable approach?

Thanks in advance
Guido Franceschini
Telecom Italia


Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you
====================================================================

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt