Re: [Sipping] [Sip] rtp seq and timestamp
"CHEN JIANBIN" <Jianbin.Chen@alcatel-sbell.com.cn> Wed, 04 June 2008 07:46 UTC
Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07933A6C44; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525B53A6AB5; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 W+gZ3W3IPk4Y; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (cnrelay03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn [211.144.215.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0776A3A681B; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnshgsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (8.13.8/8.13.8/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id m546n3da032553; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:49:09 +0800
Received: from CNSHGSMBS01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([172.24.146.174]) by cnshgsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:50:09 +0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:50:08 +0800
Message-ID: <689BFA4B1AF50745893A3DE0F99673A84B3B79@CNSHGSMBS01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <2374a5fb0806030113v2049961cufbc7a4988bb005a0@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] rtp seq and timestamp
Thread-Index: AcjFUxA+C3XKXS+uRcamQmJNsPLnKQAuXi3Q
References: <2374a5fb0806030113v2049961cufbc7a4988bb005a0@mail.gmail.com>
From: CHEN JIANBIN <Jianbin.Chen@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
To: 孙永光 <sammanengineer@gmail.com>, sip@ietf.org, IETF Sipping List <sipping@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2008 06:50:09.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B0CE8D0:01C8C60F]
X-imss-version: 2.050
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-approveListMatch: *@alcatel-sbell.com.cn
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:46:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [Sipping] [Sip] rtp seq and timestamp
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1975327660=="
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Samman,
According to RFC3550, SSRC means Synchronization Source.
"All packets from a synchronization source form part of the same
timing and sequence number space, so a receiver groups packets by
synchronization source for playback. "
For the SSRC is changed as you mentioned, the "seq no" and "timestamp" has no relationship with the previous one.
Different SSRC means different timing and sequence number space.
It has no meaning to compare seq no and timestamp with different SSRC.
BR
Ben
________________________________
From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 孙永光
Sent: 2008年6月3日 16:13
To: sip@ietf.org; IETF Sipping List
Subject: [Sip] rtp seq and timestamp
Hi Guys
I have a question as following
A and B are already connented , A sent a re-invite to B, and the three-way handshake is ok
after it, the rtp (A to B)'s seq no is larger than the before and the SSRC is different I think it is ok , but the timestamp is samller than
the before I do not know whther it is ok or not
can anyone give me some advices
Thanks
Samman
2008-6-3
--
msn:yongguangsun@hotmail.com <mailto:msn%3Ayongguangsun@hotmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] rtp seq and timestamp 孙永光
- Re: [Sipping] rtp seq and timestamp Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [Sipping] [Sip] rtp seq and timestamp CHEN JIANBIN