Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?

Paul Kyzivat <> Mon, 27 May 2013 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D53321F940B for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U6v2z45ZdAmi for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:227]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C321F90AC for <>; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id h41J1l0021vXlb85C4w5Ao; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:56:05 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by with comcast id h4w41l01T3ZTu2S3d4w5Hc; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:56:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:56:03 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20121106; t=1369673765; bh=H5ncAjxLNCDU+kITzdS6YLaTIqS/3gXg+IOysElGqyA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=i6kvsm0JdvKcWuDmhVsmMaPgG6EY2q86e0iOXSQh+b+4ZmDKsTd4AelVcrP6iyyyh S2FYOPc5fRBTv4qdL+7H35xryAyqHa81xkbecD9YT9XV29EA6jVYo84Kw8QE+55wi2 OCMqXLPhkBaCRMpSby0xv8CjDvu0x5w1zwDtFa5G6q/uJMSCMvx7z1eIhHDxeja7U5 gwYEQtmih/CpsrB1EFCVn0YqakUzhOJz/bEGFDBdOc5JqNUYVrLBizmk3Y/+E1OAA6 T8N5bvwv8pmkekLk7amyNqvOpfsDK6E13wnC/4ZpFidR48mVg7UMjQDhv/KzmH9lTC CWBqkxv+VlW8A==
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Scope of RTP payload types in BUNDLE?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:56:10 -0000


As I suggested on another thread, ISTM that it should be possible to 
reuse the same PT to map to different payload formats in different 
m-lines of a bundle *if* there is some other characteristic declared in 
SDP and present in packets that can be used to associate the packet to 
one m-line. In that case, after picking the m-line, the mapping from PT 
to payload format for *that* m-line can be used. E.g.,

    o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4
    c=IN IP4
    t=0 0
    a=group:bundle X Y
    m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
    a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
    m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 96
    a=rtpmap:96 G7291/16000


On 5/27/13 8:29 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> There were a number of comments in the call last week, and on the list, about unique payload types in BUNDLE. I'd like to explore this further.
> Case A: Within a single RTP session, I think we'd all agree that an offer that uses the same RTP payload type for two payload formats on a single m= line is problematic:
>     v=0
>     o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4
>     s=
>     c=IN IP4
>     t=0 0
>     m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
>     a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
>     a=rtpmap:96 G7291/16000
> If this were done the receiver would have no way of distinguishing what payload format is meant by payload type 96. Accordingly, unique payload formats need to be used for each payload format.
> Case B: If one were to use two separate m= lines on different ports, in the non-BUNDLE case, then the same RTP payload type can be reused without difficulty:
>     v=0
>     o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4
>     s=
>     c=IN IP4
>     t=0 0
>     m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96
>     a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000
>     m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 96
>     a=rtpmap:96 G7291/16000
> The implication is that there are two separate RTP sessions, which the receiver can distinguish based on the UDP port on which the packets are received. The mapping from RTP payload types to payload formats is done on a per-RTP session basis.
> Case C: This is when we BUNDLE several m= lines on a single UDP port. On the call last week, there seemed to be agreement that the m= lines in such a BUNDLE group comprise a single RTP session (it also matches the definition of an RTP session from RFC 3550: the packets go to a single destination and the m= lines share a single SSRC space). To me this would suggest that the RTP payload type values MUST be unique across the m= lines (or, if the same RTP payload type is used in different m= lines, it MUST map to an identical payload format). The reason is that everything runs over one UDP port, and if a single RTP payload type is mapped to different payload formats, there's no way to distinguish which payload format is meant. This is essentially the same as case A above.
> Given this, it's not clear to me that non-unique payload types make sense within a BUNDLE group. They work on different m= lines in the legacy case because those lines form different RTP sessions, and the RTP sessions can be used to scope the payload type to payload format mappings. I don't see that they work in BUNDLE, because there's a single RTP session, and so a single mapping from payload type to payload format.