[asterisk-biz] SIP RFC argument needed to refute vendor equipment behavior

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On 06/18/2012 03:59 PM, Nathan Shadle wrote:
> I definitely agree that it would be more appropriate to put the endpoint in
> inactive or recvonly, but don't agree that the monitoring tools should be
> able to "tolerate" this. They are doing their job reporting missing packets
> when they see an RTP sequence number gap. The only purpose for this sequence
> number is specifically to order and detect packets that are missing or
> out-of-ordered, no?

Yes, that is its purpose, and these packets are indeed 'missing', 
because the media server did not send any audio covering the time period 
in question. It would be far worse if it began sending audio after the 
1s quiet period and the sequence numbers/timestamps resumed right where 
they left off before; that would cause the RTP playout on the receiving 
endpoints to be 1s behind the incoming media stream, since they played 
silence for 1s and are now receiving audio that claims to cover the same 
time range.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming at digium.com | SIP: kpfleming at digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org