Some endpoints (like Tandberg E20) can send BYE packet containing our
internal SSRC. I this case we would detect SSRC collision and get rid
of the source at some point. But because we are still sending packets
with that SSRC the source will be recreated immediately.
This brand new internal source will not have some variables incorrectly
set in its state. For example 'seqnum-base` and `clock-rate` values will be
-1.
The fix is not to act on BYE RTCP if it contains internal or unknown
SSRC.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=762219
The access to the session hash table must happen while the session lock is
taken, otherwise another thread might modify the hash table while we're
creating the stats.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766025
generate_rtcp can produce empty packets when reduced size RTCP is turned on.
Skip them since it doesn't make sense to push them and they cause errors with
elements that expect RTCP packets to contain data (like srtpenc).
Add statitics from each rtp source to the rtp session property.
'source-stats' is a GValueArray where each element is a GstStructure of
stats for one rtp source.
The availability of new stats is signaled via g_object_notify.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752669
Otherwise we will have 10s-100s of thread wakeups in feedback profiles, create
RTCP packets, etc. just to suppress them in 99% of the cases (i.e. if no
feedback is actually pending and no regular RTCP has to be sent).
This improves CPU usage and battery life quite a lot.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746543
If we may suppress the packet due to the rules of RFC4585 (i.e. when
below the t-rr-int), we can send a smaller RTCP packet without RRs
and full SDES. In theory we could even send a minimal RTCP packet
according to RFC5506, but we don't support that yet.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746543
Otherwise we can't properly schedule RTCP in feedback profiles as we need to
distinguish the time when we last checked for sending RTCP (tp) but might have
suppressed it, and the time when we last actually sent a non-early RTCP
packet.
This together with the other changes should now properly implement RTCP
scheduling according to RFC4585, and especially allow us to send feedback
packets a lot if needed but only send regular RTCP packets every once in a
while.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746543
And modify our RTCP scheduling algorithm accordingly. We now can send more
RTCP packets if needed for feedback, but will throttle full RTCP packets by
rtcp-min-interval (t-rr-int from RFC4585).
In non-feedback mode, rtcp-min-interval is Tmin from RFC3550, which is
statically set to 1s or 0s by RFC4585. Tmin defines how often we should
send RTCP packets at most.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746543
This reverts commit d22ec49632.
Application code might expect that it only gets external sources on those
signals, and get confused by this. If anything we would need to add new
signals.
Without this it seems impossible for an application to easily get notified
about the internal ssrcs that are created, e.g. sender sources, and also
to know when they are active and produce RTCP packets.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746747
This reverts commit 1591adf4cd.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745586#c1:
It's the beginning of an implementation of RFC 2762, which is needed for
large multicast groups. The implementation is not yet complete but why
not leave what is there and implement RFC 2762 instead?
rtpsession declares an array of maps to store srrcs but only the
the key 0 is being used. This patch replaces the array of maps
for just one map and remove useless parameters in rtpsession
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745586
According to RFC 4585 section 3.5.3 step 1 we are not allowed to send
an early RTCP packet for the very first one. It must be a regular one.
Also make sure to not use last_rtcp_send_time in any calculations until
we actually sent an RTCP packet already. In specific this means that we
must not use it for forward reconsideration of the current RTCP send time.
Instead we don't do any forward reconsideration for the first RTCP packet.
This will be emitted whenever an RTCP packet is received. Different to
on-feedback-rtcp, this signal gets every complete RTCP packet and not
just the individual feedback packets.
It had no effect since quite some time and also is not needed in general,
especially not to switch between immediate feedback mode and early feedback
mode. The latest understanding of the RFC is that from the endpoint point of
view, both modes are exactly the same. RTCP is only allowed to use the
bandwidth as given by the RFC constraints, as such it is only ever possible
to schedule a RTCP packet early but it's against the RFC to schedule more RTCP
packets.
The difference between immediate feedback mode and early feedback mode is that
the former guarantees that an RTCP packet can be sent for every event
"immediately", which means that the bandwidth calculations from the RFC have
resulted in an RTCP scheduling interval that is small enough. Early feedback
mode on the other hand means that we can schedule some packets early to make
that happen, but it's not guaranteed at all that it's possible to schedule
an RTCP packet per event (i.e. they need to be accumulated or dropped).
This indicates with a boolean return value if scheduling a new RTCP packet
within the requested delay was possible. Otherwise it behaves exactly like
send-rtcp. The only reason for adding a new signal is ABI compatibility.
In early retransmission we are allowed to schedule 1 regular RTCP packet
at an earlier time. When we do that, we need to set allow_early to FALSE
and ignore/drop (or merge) all future requests for early transmission.
We now first check if we can schedule an early RTCP and if we can,
actually prepare the data for the next RTCP interval.
After we send the next regular RTCP after the early RTCP, we set
allow_early to TRUE again to allow more early requests.
Remove the condition for the immediate feedback for now.
Fixes https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=738319
