Re: [MMUSIC] Associating packets with m-lines in a bundle

Bernard Aboba <> Sat, 25 May 2013 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B9A21E8095 for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.362
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.803, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BR7iXs06ShCB for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D9611E812D for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU403-EAS112 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 May 2013 17:18:38 -0700
X-EIP: [8Vjm1JD5sQgJdJ6uRntYzxxQYv8IJhSE]
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU403-EAS11291D50BCA39955DE3C9C393940@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:34:50 -0700
To: Paul Kyzivat <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2013 00:18:38.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[672A86A0:01CE58DD]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Associating packets with m-lines in a 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: Sat, 25 May 2013 00:18:47 -0000

On May 23, 2013, at 11:50, "Paul Kyzivat" <> wrote:

> After all the discussion in the meeting today, I thought it would be good to unwind all the indenting and start a new thread on one issue that is part of the "demux" problem:
> IMO the following should obviously be a truism. I want to know if all agree.
> If an O/A exchange negotiates a bundle with multiple m-lines,
> then attributes in those m-lines and the associated media sections must provide sufficient information to associate each incoming packet on the 5-tuple to exactly *one* of those m-lines.

[BA] I would argue that this statement needs to be true for *both* RTP and RTCP packets.

> (If it doesn't, then there was no point in including those m-lines in the bundle.)
> For instance a=ssrc, if unique to one m-line, can bind packets with that SSRC to the m-line.

[BA] That is only necessary for RTP (and RTCP) if the PT is not unique to an m line; otherwise PT demux is sufficient for RTP.  For RTCP the situation is more complicated. If we only need to bind RTCP packets from RTP senders, we can build an SSRC to PT to m line table dynamically, based on SSRCs and PTs seen in RTP packets.  However if we get a RR from a source that has not yet sent, we can't map it to an m line without a=ssrc if BUNDLE is in use.  

> If a property such as SSRC is used this way, then there is the possibility of receiving packets that don't match any of the m-lines. I think we ought to address that, by defining some syntax to specify what to do with packets that don't match any m-line. This might be to specify one m-line as the default, or that packets that don't match be discarded.

[BA] I do not believe that a default m line makes sense for RTCP packets that can't be bound to an m line.  Discard, while undesirable, seems like the only option. However this could create problems in diagnostics in some cases.