[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
- [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequencies Franceschini Guido
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Albrecht.Schwarz
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Colin Perkins
- RE: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Franceschini Guido
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… O'Connor, Kevin
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [AVT] Issue with different timestamp frequenc… Desineni, Harikishan