[AVT] Another question on RFC 4103
Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Sat, 18 April 2009 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D353A6A5C for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.227
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.821, BAYES_20=-0.74, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FmHENHya6inl for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.implementers.org (server.implementers.org [69.55.225.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493193A692E for <avt@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by server.implementers.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B880115BC4030; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (server.implementers.org [127.0.0.1]) by server.implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 96EEC15BC4032 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:31:02 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <49E9F234.7000400@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:31:00 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:29:50 -0000
RFC 4103 does not give any advice on what to do when a t140block to send will create an RTP packet that will exceed the PMTU. Should the PMTU be considered as an implicit maximum character transmission rate, or should multiple RTP packets with the same timestamp be sent? (for the latter there is the additional issue that RFC 2198 does not provide any advice on the same problem). For example let say that the cps is 30 and the PMTU is unknown so 576 bytes is the maximum IPv4 packet size that can be sent. With 30 cps and a language that makes use of three bytes per character, the maximum block size is 900 bytes which is more than the maximum IPv4 packet size without even counting the overhead. In this case the maximum implicit cps would be 17 cps. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: marc@petit-huguenin.org Work: petithug@acm.org
- [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103 Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103 Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [AVT] Another question on RFC 4103 Marc Petit-Huguenin