Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Real-time Transport Protocol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Real-time Transport Protocol was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
December 17, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).

Telecommunications High‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On the layer

On Wiki-Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_Model die RTP-Protocol is located on OSI-layer 4 (Transport) --> DoD-Layer 3 (together with UDP, TCP, DCCP, SCTP).

On this Wiki-Page the RTP is located in DoD-Layer 4 (Application Process).

In my opinion the latter is the correct one.

"RTP relies on the underlying protocol(s) to provide demultiplexing of RTP data and RTCP control streams." (RFC3550 67)

Since RTP itself does not supply any kind of multiplexing and it tranports RTCP (Monitoring and control QoS-paramters) it should not be assigned to layer 3.

How do you think about this?

A. Yes, I think you are right, definetely RTP, RTSP and RTCP do not belong to the transport level.

I have changed the category of these three protocols to category:application layer protocols. What OSI layer does the RSVP protocol have? Mange01 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the change at all. IP goes over ARP, and it does not make a 3rd layer protocol. RTP is obviously a Transport protocol (it is even its name!), but since it belongs to a new generation, it subdivides the 3rd layer in 2. But if you don't believe me, believe the RFC 3550 self in its 1.Introduccion:

Applications typically run RTP on top of UDP to make use of its multiplexing and checksum services; both protocols contribute parts of the transport protocol functionality.

Wikipedia does not "think", just know. Please revert the changes. 22-2-07

someone should really fix this,it made me look stupid in front of my employees and i have no idea how to fix this myself89.1.24.220 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No speculation on what layer it operates is required when the RFC is quite explicit. There are many examples of multiple protocols operating at the same layer, 802.2 LLC or SNAP are layer 2 operating with 802.3 or 802.5 etc. Do not confuse the encapsulation with layer of functionality.

We are still describing this as an application layer protocol. This is consistent with RFC 3550. It is important to be clear that the application layer we're talking about is per the Internet protocol suite. It looks like someone over at OSI model has decided that RTP is a session layer protocol. There's going to be some controversy about that because RTP is an IETF protocol so, strictly speaking, the OSI model does not apply. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage?

What softwares and services are really using RTP? I suggest a section called Usage. Mange01 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence to the Overview section. ~Kvng (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Packet structure

Packet structure has been pared to Packet header and Timestamp has a detailed description. ~Kvng (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps this section should be split up using 3rd-level headings.

Also, I think the format for the timestamp should be given. Comments? --AlastairIrvine 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Port Range

I think the port range specified in this article needs to be updated. The article states "Although there are no standards assigned, RTP is generally configured to use ports 16384-32767." This statement bit me in the behind a couple of weeks ago when I ran a packet capture for a customer during a voice call and the RTP was coming in using ports in the 39000 range. I had initially told the customer that as long as he opened up 16384-32767 for RTP, he would be ok, but on his VoIP calls he could not hear the person on the other end. He had his ISP open up ports all the way to 40000 and the problem was solved, no thanks to Wiki. I understand that the article states that RTP is "generally configured" to use that port range, which means that it is possible that the RTP will use ports outside of that range, but I thought that the range could at least be updated to be a bit more accurate if at all possible. I'm assuming that there is more information out there now to further increase the accuracy of the "general" range of RTP ports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.34.74 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the port range 16384-32767 should come out unless somebody can provide a citation. I've searched the web looking for something to back it up and found nothing. I did find this, "IETF recommend ports 6970 to 6999", at the Wireshark wiki but I couldn't back that up either. --Exaudio (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been resolved with a book citation: ports 1024-65535. ~Kvng (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Real-time Transport Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://rtpmobile.sitesled.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link no longer in EL section. ~Kvng (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Real-time Transport Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://rtpmobile.sitesled.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link no longer in EL section. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]