[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Receiving a bye]]
From:       Joegen Baclor <joegen.baclor () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-05-25 2:19:58
Message-ID: FE6D0A7A118448F183F6269799968A43 () opteron
[Download RAW message or body]

That could very well be the case.  I have seen a lot of interoperability 
issues with G.729 particularly in terms of correctly choosing ptime. 
Although, it is perfectly legal that opposite media streams use different 
ptime, some implementations assume that what ever ptime was sent in the 
offer should also be the ptime in the answer (perhaps due to read buffer 
size pre-allocations).    Try forcing the offer ptime to 40 ms and see if 
that changes anything.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ian Bell" <bell.ian@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:59 PM
To: "'Harsha. R'" <harsha.ramanagoudra@gmail.com>
Cc: <sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Receiving a bye]]

> Thank you - does this mean a possible packet size mismatch or something? 
> One
> end being 20 and this end been 40?
>
>
>
> From: Harsha. R [mailto:harsha.ramanagoudra@gmail.com]
> Sent: 22 May 2009 17:27
> To: bell.ian@blueyonder.co.uk
> Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Receiving a bye]]
>
>
>
> I would suspect the packetization interval in the answer; may be the 
> offerer
> did not like this.
>
>
>
> a=ptime:40
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Regards
> Harsha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.37/2131 - Release Date: 05/24/09 
> 07:09:00
> 

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]