-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bitstream is corrupted error #12
Comments
The module only implements However, the issue is much more complicated, if that is not a corrupted payload and its TOC states that a frame is followed by another speech frame (in this very same payload), then you have to implement that. This is a feature which is not implemented by my AMR module either, because that is work and I considered that an unused edge case. However, a VoIP SIP client for Microsoft Windows ‘MicroSIP’ is using that. And perhaps your remote party as well. Therefore that comment, ToDo. Long story short, you have to debug whether this is really a second frame scenario in RTP, or a hf negation failure in SDP, or just a corrupted frame on the transport. The easiest way to proceed with this: Which mode is affected EVS or AMR-WB? And is it always the same remote party (user agent) creating those frames? |
Both, Apple iOS and Samsung, were tested. Of course, that says not much as there are always corner cases. Anyway, without RTP data, I do not know how to proceed here. |
While I'm trying to get the RTP data, here's what one of the original engineers for the SBC node told me when EVS codec was activated: An advice please, if you can: Thanks a lot in advance. |
Answered with my previous answer: ‘[My transcoding] module only implements |
I managed to apply the patch and test the EVS codec with an actual SBC. But sometimes, some calls are logging such errors:
Sometimes they come 2-3 times (both of them), sometimes Asterisk writes them 100+ times for a call.
The related code for this errors in
codec_evs.c
is like this (starting line 464):I'm suspecting this happens because of there is no PLC (Packet-Loss Concealment) implemented?
The
force_limitations.patch
is forcing only Header Full format. If some RTP packages do not come with headers, can that be a reason for the errors I get in logs? What if I changehf-only =-1
?Don't have many chances to test all the scenarios, so would be great to get an advice on how would be the best to proceed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: