Vadim,

I've got no contact using QuteCom. I've tested it with the "Make test 
call". I don't know if this is more QuteCom <=> QuteCom.

The result:

Timestamp 110160000 wanted.
Seeing packet with ts=10983330
t1 - t2 < 1<<31 : 99176670 < 2147483648

Timestamp 110250000 wanted.
Seeing packet with ts=10990800
  t1 - t2 < 1<<31 : 99259200 < 2147483648

Timestamp 110340000 wanted.
Seeing packet with ts=11001060
  t1 - t2 < 1<<31 : 99338940 < 2147483648

Timestamp 110430000 wanted.
Seeing packet with ts=11009430
  t1 - t2 < 1<<31 : 99420570 < 2147483648

Timestamp 110520000 wanted.
Seeing packet with ts=11019330
  t1 - t2 < 1<<31 : 99500670 < 2147483648


Wanted timestamp grows with    +90000
Seen timestamp grows with about +7500


It's better than +10 to +90000, therefore t1 - t2 is growing less 
rapidly which means you can talk more than 30 min. About 32 min I guess.

Markus


Am 01.07.2009 17:44 Uhr, schrieb Vadim Lebedev:
> Markus
>
> I undestand is that your setup is Wengophone<=>  QuteCom....
> Can you test please QuteCom<=>  QuteCom
>
> Thanks
> Vadim
> Markus Hossner wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> Am 30.06.2009 12:40 Uhr, schrieb Simon Morlat:
>>
>>> The reason for the RTP_TIMESTAMP_NEWER_THAN macro is that timestamps are
>>> circular. Using  won't work in all cases. Indeed 0 is newer than (2^31)+1.
>>> It seems that the problem is that both timestamp don't grow identically.
>>> Having a video timestamp growing by +10 is problematic. It would mean that
>>> video frames are separated by 10/90000=1.1111e-04 s, so a framerate of 9000
>>> frame per second. Are you inventing a new VVHD standart (Very Very High
>>> Definition) -:) ?
>>>
>>
>> So the problem lies in the packet timestamp. It should grow like the
>> wanted timestamp to prevent a difference greater than 1<<  31.
>>
>>
>> Markus
>> _______________________________________________
>> QuteCom-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
>>
>>
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
QuteCom-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev

Reply via email to