Thank you all for your input it looks like it was the other ends ptime been 40 and our side 20. We appear to have 2 way speech now.
Keep up the good work Ian -----Original Message----- From: Joegen Baclor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 May 2009 03:20 To: Ian Bell; 'Harsha. R' Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Receiving a bye]] 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" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:59 PM To: "'Harsha. R'" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 May 2009 17:27 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
