Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] RTCP stream analyzed

[Lars Ruoff <lars.ruoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No, i don't have any excuse! ;-)

The idea behind this was that the maximum delay as shown is used to hunt down network problems in VoIP flows.
But in those VoIP flows, the Marker bit usually marks the end of a silence period.
I considered having a delay between the last packet of voice before the silence and the first packet after the silence (Marker=TRUE) is normal behavior and thus should not count for the maximum delay.
But this idea is totally biased with my personal experience and may have to be rethought.
(Especially since Video streams use the marker bit differently in general)

Lars


raja satria utama wrote:
> why? is you have excuse for that?
>  
> regards
> -radja
>
> */Lars Ruoff <lars.ruoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>
>     Yes, the delay is not taken into account for the maximum if the
>     packet has the Marker bit set.
>
>     br,
>     Lars Ruoff
>
>     raja satria utama wrote:
>      > in windows "Wireshark:RTP Sream Analysis" shows Delta for each
>     packet,
>      > you can see figure on my attached file...
>      > on windows was written "max delta is 2.698175 second at packet
>     no.849"
>      > but if we look at the end of column in RTP stream analysis the
>     maxest
>      > delta is 4929.78 at packet 1307
>      > i wanna ask why in determining of max delta is different..??? it's
>      > caused by the marker value ?
>      >
>      > */Gerry Brown /* wrote:
>      >
>      > >what does mean column of 'Marker" in windows "Wireshark:RTP Stream
>      > >Analysis"??
>      >
>      > From RFC 3550
>      > marker (M): 1 bit
>      > The interpretation of the marker is defined by a profile. It is
>      > intended to allow significant events such as frame boundaries to
>      > be marked in the packet stream. A profile MAY define additional
>      > marker bits or specify that there is no marker bit by changing the
>      > number of bits in the payload type field (see Section 5.3).
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Wireshark-users mailing list
>      > Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>      > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Wireshark-users mailing list
>      > Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wireshark-users mailing list
>     Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-users mailing list
> Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users