[SIPForum-discussion] Even Port number for RTP in SDP

NK nitinkapoorr at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 16:07:34 UTC 2014


Dear All,

Can you please help me on one issue, where one of client is complaining
that they need RTP even port in SDP not the ODD.  Which is Fax Call.

Although I checked the RFC 2327 & 4566 for SDP. In RFC 2327 its clearly
mentioned that we should use even port for RTP compliance, whereas in RFC
4566 Its not clearing that is it MANDATORY or not.

Can you please help me on this.

>From RFC2327



m=<media> <port> <transport> <fmt list>



   A session description may contain a number of media descriptions.   Each
media description starts with an "m=" field, and is terminated by either
the next "m=" field or by the end of the session description.A media field
also has several sub-fields:

   o The first sub-field is the media type.  Currently defined media
are "audio",
"video", "application", "data" and "control", though this list may be
extended as new communication modalities emerge (e.g.,telepresense).The
difference between "application" and "data" is that the former is a media
flow such as whiteboard information, and

the latter is bulk-data transfer such as multicasting of program executables
which will not typically be displayed to the user. "control" is used to
specify an additional conference control channel for the session.

   o The second sub-field is the transport port to which the media stream
will be sent.  The meaning of the transport port depends on the network
being used as specified in the relevant "c" field and on the transport
protocol defined in the third sub-field.  Other ports used by the media
application (such as the RTCP port, see

     [2]) should be derived algorithmically from the base media port.


*Note: For transports based on UDP, the value should be in the range 1024
to 65535 inclusive.  For RTP compliance it should be an even number.*


*Regards,*

*Nitin Kapoor*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140110/a5d6a0ac/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list