They're not duplicating any packets, just setting the Marker flag on them all.<br><br>According to the RTP RFC "It is intended to allow significant events such as frame boundaries to be marked in the packet stream".<br>
<br>You generally see them on the first packet containing voice after a period of silence. Why Huawei decided to set it on every packet is a mystery.<br><br>-Steve<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 February 2011 12:31, Vitalii Colosov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vetali100@gmail.com">vetali100@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Just wondering - what is this brilliant idea which made Huawei engineers to setup their switch behave this way?<div>
<br></div><div>Is there any REAL benefit? What did they try to achieve by duplicating each RTP packet...</div>
<div><br></div><div>(Or maybe it is so strange way to assure the reliability of the traffic? At least one packet out of 2 will reach the destination) :)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2011/2/17 Javier Gallart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jgallartm@gmail.com" target="_blank">jgallartm@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Hello<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>my mistake... I had written data="RTP_BUG_IGNORE_MARK_BIT" instead of value="RTP_BUG_IGNORE_MARK_BIT". It's working now. Keep this in mind if you ever happen to put a Huawei SBC in from of a FS!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Javier</div></font><div><div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Javier Gallart <<a href="mailto:jgallartm@gmail.com" target="_blank">jgallartm@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:28:35 +0100<br>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g729 packets skipped in passthrough mode<br>Hello,<div><br></div><div>I've looked deeper into this issue and I might have hit a known problem:</div><div><br></div><div><div>RTP_BUG_IGNORE_MARK_BIT = (1 << 2)</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span>/*</div>
<div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span> A Huawei SBC has been discovered that sends the mark bit on every single RTP packet.</div><div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span> Since this causes the RTP stack to flush it's buffers, it horribly messes up the timing on the channel.</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span> This flag will do nothing when an inbound packet contains the mark bit.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span> */</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>The carrier is actually a Huawei SBC, and the problem I reported only happens when it sends the marker bit = true in all the rtp packets. I've tried </div><div><param name="auto-rtp-bugs" data="RTP_BUG_IGNORE_MARK_BIT"/> in the profile but the problem is still there, is this the right way to override this nonsense from the Huawei?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Javier<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Anthony Minessale <<a href="mailto:anthony.minessale@gmail.com" target="_blank">anthony.minessale@gmail.com</a>><br>To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <<a href="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a>><br>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:38:35 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] FreeSWITCH-users Digest, Vol 56, Issue 177<br>Well that's all I could think of:<br>
<br>
passthrough is passthrough FS never modifies anything.<br>
you need to look harder at sip trace, pcaps or other diagnostics for<br>
some misconfiguration.<br>
many people use this daily.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Javier Gallart <<a href="mailto:jgallartm@gmail.com" target="_blank">jgallartm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Anthony, thanks for the tip. I haven't seen any change though. I should have<br>
> mentioned that I'm focusing in the rtp stream coming form the callee to the<br>
> caller. The problem is that FS relays to the caller only half of the packets<br>
> received from the callee. The packets arrive at FS at a rate of 1 packet<br>
> every 20 ms, and with a payload of 20 bytes each. Packets from FS to the<br>
> caller are sent every 40 ms with a payload of 20 bytes, thus skipping half<br>
> of the information.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
>><br>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
>> From: Anthony Minessale <<a href="mailto:anthony.minessale@gmail.com" target="_blank">anthony.minessale@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> To: FreeSWITCH Users Help <<a href="mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a>><br>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:38:57 -0600<br>
>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g729 packets skipped in passthrough mode<br>
>> I bet its 20ms vs 30<br>
>> set passthru_ptime_mismatch to true either in vars.xml or in your<br>
>> dialplan both legs through export on the a leg or set in the a leg and<br>
>> in the {} on b.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Brian West <<a href="mailto:brian@freeswitch.org" target="_blank">brian@freeswitch.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > What exactly is the problem? I see no issue here can you elaborate on<br>
>> > what you're seeing?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > /b<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Feb 14, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Javier Gallart wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> I've tried to explicitly set ptime at 20ms at switch.conf -although<br>
>> >> it's not necessary afaik-. Has any one experienced this same issue?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks in advance..<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Regards<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br><br></blockquote></div></div>
<br><br></blockquote></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>
UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>
<a href="http://www.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org">FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>
UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>
<a href="http://www.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>