Discussion:
Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK
Nitin Kapoor
2011-03-09 07:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Hello All,

Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.

Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for
SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
*183 with SDP*
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
Johan DE CLERCQ
2011-03-09 07:35:08 UTC
Permalink
I don't know if there's a document about this, but in my opinion you will not encounter any problem with the incrementation.

From: sip-implementors-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Nitin Kapoor
Sent: woensdag 9 maart 2011 8:25
To: sip-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: ***@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK - Email found in subject


Hello All,

Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.

Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for
SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
*183 with SDP*
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

________________________________

Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Versie: 10.0.1204 / Virusdatabase: 1497/3492 - datum van uitgifte: 03/08/11
isshed
2011-03-09 16:31:38 UTC
Permalink
hello nitin,,
you can not increase session version. session version can only be
incremented.
as per RFC 4566
"<sess-version> is a version number for this session description. Its usage
is up to the creating tool, so long as <sess-version> is

increased when a modification is made to the session data. Again, it is
RECOMMENDED that an NTP format timestamp is used."

Also to answer your question if there is an answer in 183 and 200 both. So
in this case sdp in 200(same as in 183) ok wil be ignored.

i hope that answers your question.
Post by Johan DE CLERCQ
I don't know if there's a document about this, but in my opinion you will
not encounter any problem with the incrementation.
Sent: woensdag 9 maart 2011 8:25
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200
OK - Email found in subject
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183
as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of
the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when
my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP
as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for
SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
*183 with SDP*
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
________________________________
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Versie: 10.0.1204 / Virusdatabase: 1497/3492 - datum van uitgifte: 03/08/11
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
Nitin Kapoor
2011-03-09 09:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Hello Ashish,

Here is the mline for both the messages.

183:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

200 OK:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor
what is the mline of 200OK SDP.
Regards
Ashish Saxena
(www.aricent.com)
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for SDP
in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
183 with SDP
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used
for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received
this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this
message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from
the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from
virus."
Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
2011-03-09 10:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Hi Nitin,


Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as
new negotiation(offer).
Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session
version is incremented there also?


Regards
Sanjiv

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext
Nitin Kapoor
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Ashish Saxena
Cc: ***@ietf.org; sip-***@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in
183 &200 OK

Hello Ashish,

Here is the mline for both the messages.

183:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

200 OK:

Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor


On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena
what is the mline of 200OK SDP.
Regards
Ashish Saxena
(www.aricent.com)
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for SDP
in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
183 with SDP
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used
for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received
this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this
message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from
the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from
virus."
Nitin Kapoor
2011-03-09 13:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sanjiv,

I do agree that "session-version" should increment by one from the previous
SDP when there is any modification is involved in SDP. But i haven't seen
any modification into the SDP of 183 & 200 OK/

Also, there was no SDP in ACK. If you need i can share the traces with you.

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore) <
Post by Jaiswal, Sanjiv (NSN - IN/Bangalore)
Hi Nitin,
Every SDP with incremented session ( in this case 200 OK) is treated as
new negotiation(offer).
Whether ACK from other end contains SDP answer? If yes then session
version is incremented there also?
Regards
Sanjiv
-----Original Message-----
Nitin Kapoor
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Ashish Saxena
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in
183 &200 OK
Hello Ashish,
Here is the mline for both the messages.
Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18
Media Description, name and address (m): audio 43888 RTP/AVP 18
Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ashish Saxena
what is the mline of 200OK SDP.
Regards
Ashish Saxena
(www.aricent.com)
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Different SDP Session Version in 183 & 200 OK
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in
183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most
of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here
when my
termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the
SDP as
below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "Session Version" for
SDP
in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
183 with SDP
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22660 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 22661 IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the
session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended
solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or
used
for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have
received
this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If
you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents
of this
message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising
from
the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage
from
virus."
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
Albert Rodriguez
2011-03-09 13:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Hello Sip Implementors,

I am in need of an RTCP Guru. My SBC is sending out an RTCP Seder Report with "7" Source IPs and a frame size of 1088. Apparently they are claiming that this RTCP packet is causing their high density GW (Multiple TDM DS3's) to fail.

I have consulted with several subject matter experts - but you folks are the best!

I have three questions:

1. below is the pcap export of the RTCP packets they have been able to capture originating from our SBC. Is there anything unusual or out of RFC?

2. This issue is intermittent, which leads me to believe that the RTP Media is shuffled around quite a bit. I have not seen this occur in real time, as it is not easily reproducible. I’m pretty confident that our SBC does not generate arbitrary sources; so my theory is that the client side ep is sending us SIP signals that include these sources? Is this a reasonable assumption.

3. Last question – what field are the the Sources for RTCP generated by? Is it “via,” connection information?? (my apologies on this one – I should either know it or be able to find it)

Below are some txt based RTCP captures.

As always, Thanks in advance!!!

Best,
Albert

Frame 942 (1155 bytes on wire, 1155 bytes captured)
Ethernet II, Src: c8:4c:75:22:3d:a6 (c8:4c:75:22:3d:a6), Dst: HewlettP_e3:0c:d6 (00:1b:78:e3:0c:d6)
Internet Protocol, Src: 10.231.121.52 (10.231.121.52), Dst: 10.201.120.33 (10.201.120.33)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: 925 (925), Dst Port: 925 (925)
Source port: 925 (925)
Destination port: 925 (925)
Length: 1121
Checksum: 0x0000 (none)
Good Checksum: False
Bad Checksum: False
AUDIOCODES DEBUG RECORDING
Version: 0x02
Time Stamp: 05344AFAA3B1(5722154.378161 sec)
Source ID: 58
Dest ID: 58
Reserved: AA
Trace Point: Network -> Dsp (0)
Media Type: RTCP Packet (2)
Payload offset: 10
Header Extension
Packet source IP address: 10.101.1.9 (10.101.1.9)
Packet source UDP port: 22425
Packet destination UDP port: 18721
IP type of service: 0
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (Sender Report)
10.. .... = Version: RFC 1889 Version (2)
..1. .... = Padding: True
...0 0111 = Reception report count: 7
Packet type: Sender Report (200)
Length: 240 (964 bytes)
Sender SSRC: 0x33a6c201 (866566657)
Timestamp, MSW: 3506777311 (0xd1052cdf)
Timestamp, LSW: 2259152798 (0x86a7ef9e)
[MSW and LSW as NTP timestamp: Feb 15, 2011 16:48:31.5260 UTC]
RTP timestamp: 82492160
Sender's packet count: 331121
Sender's octet count: 10595872
Source 1
Identifier: 0x09bb552c (163271980)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 26
Extended highest sequence number received: 46423
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 46423
Interarrival jitter: 15
Last SR timestamp: 2535265796 (0x971d1604)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 181021966 (2762175 milliseconds)
Source 2
Identifier: 0x09c512b0 (163910320)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 2
Extended highest sequence number received: 112
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 112
Interarrival jitter: 23
Last SR timestamp: 0 (0x00000000)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 0 (0 milliseconds)
Source 3
Identifier: 0x0d2b4c6f (220941423)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 30
Extended highest sequence number received: 48469
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 48469
Interarrival jitter: 15
Last SR timestamp: 2138627571 (0x7f78ddf3)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 577654292 (8814304 milliseconds)
Source 4
Identifier: 0x0d517d3f (223444287)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 53
Extended highest sequence number received: 43405
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 43405
Interarrival jitter: 15
Last SR timestamp: 2267796733 (0x872bd4fd)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 448486637 (6843362 milliseconds)
Source 5
Identifier: 0x0e9391a4 (244552100)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 0
Extended highest sequence number received: 311
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 311
Interarrival jitter: 20
Last SR timestamp: 0 (0x00000000)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 0 (0 milliseconds)
Source 6
Identifier: 0x0fc09918 (264280344)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 3
Extended highest sequence number received: 122
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 122
Interarrival jitter: 15
Last SR timestamp: 0 (0x00000000)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 0 (0 milliseconds)
Source 7
Identifier: 0x132b8be4 (321620964)
SSRC contents
Fraction lost: 0 / 256
Cumulative number of packets lost: 0
Extended highest sequence number received: 310
Sequence number cycles count: 0
Highest sequence number received: 310
Interarrival jitter: 15
Last SR timestamp: 0 (0x00000000)
Delay since last SR timestamp: 0 (0 milliseconds)
Profile-specific extension: 140F67640000000300000074000000110000000000000000...
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (Source description)
10.. .... = Version: RFC 1889 Version (2)
..0. .... = Padding: False
...0 0001 = Source count: 1
Packet type: Source description (202)
Length: 30 (124 bytes)
Chunk 1, SSRC/CSRC 0x33A6C201
Identifier: 0x33a6c201 (866566657)
SDES items
Type: CNAME (user and domain) (1)
Length: 61
Text: ***@unique.zBDD1D716E31B4158.org
Type: PRIV (private extensions) (8)
Length: 49
Prefix length: 16
Prefix string: x-rtp-session-id
Text: 906F4F891777473EB1F8C7492BC5CBDE
Type: END (0)
[RTCP frame length check: OK - 1088 bytes]
Vijay Tiwari
2011-03-09 17:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Hello Nitin

Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are
mail and according to my understanding this value can be change if

"<sess-version> is increased when a modification is made to the session
data."


it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok message then
it is standard behavior


Thanks
Vijay
Post by Nitin Kapoor
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183 as
well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when
my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP
as below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for
SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
*183 with SDP*
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
implementation.
specifications.
--
They can because they think they can.
Sudeesh Ravindran
2011-03-10 06:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Hey Guys,

Please tell me , how can i relieve from this site. All your
mails are delivers into my mail id to........ Please suggest the idea.


With regards,

Ji
Post by Vijay Tiwari
Hello Nitin
Hope you are doing good, sorry i was able to respond that time. i saw are
mail and according to my understanding this value can be change if
"<sess-version> is increased when a modification is made to the session
data."
it means that if any session data change between 183 and 200 ok message
then it is standard behavior
Thanks
Vijay
Post by Nitin Kapoor
Hello All,
Could any one please help me out on requested query as below.
Thanks,
Nitin
Dear All,
I have one call scenario where my termination is sending the SDP in 183
as well as in 200 OK also. As far as i know if we are getting SDP in 183
session progress then my UAC can ignore the SDP in 200 OK. Also most of the
time SDP is same.
But here i noticed the slight difference of "Session Version". Here when
my termination is sending 188 Session Progress with SDP is sending the SDP
as below.
I can see that my Termination is incrementing "*Session Version*" for
SDP in 183 & 200 OK in same dialog..
*183 with SDP*
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22660* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
M_NAME : m=audio 59072 RTP/AVP 18 4 8 98
S_OWNER : o=TLPMSXP2 22660 *22661* IN IP4 69.90.230.210
S_NAME : s=sip call
S_CONNECT : c=IN IP4 69.90.230.217
TIME : t=0 0
Could anyone please let me know if that is okay to increment the session
version and if any supported document is there?
Thanks,
Nitin
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
SIP implementation.
specifications.
--
They can because they think they can.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
implementation.
specifications.
Loading...