Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] VoIP RTP Analysis, Lost Packet Analysis

From: "RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **" <lars.ruoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:31:25 +0200
It can be a capture method artefact, like badly configured mirroring.
 
But thinking about it, pairwise duplicate packet should give a total of -50% packet loss.
-100% seems to indicate that *all* packets are seen as duplicate of the first one, otherwise said that sequence number is not increasing at all.
 
regards,
Lars
 


________________________________

From: Martin Visser [mailto:martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: mardi 12 avril 2011 11:16
To: Community support list for Wireshark
Cc: RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR **
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] VoIP RTP Analysis, Lost Packet Analysis


I can't imagine any normal network where you would get duplicate RTP packets (they are UDP datagrams, so who is going to resend them?) 

Regards, Martin

MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx



On 11 April 2011 17:30, RUOFF, LARS (LARS)** CTR ** <lars.ruoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



	What you describe can happen if you have all packets as duplicates or if they all have the same RTP sequence number.
	Your sample capture file will tell us.
	If you limit the file to a reasonable size (10 successive RTP packets from the stream will be sufficient to see where the problem is), there's no problem for posting it as an attachment on this list.
	
	Lars
	
	
	
	________________________________
	
	From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Constantine
	Sent: samedi 9 avril 2011 16:24
	To: wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Subject: [Wireshark-users] VoIP RTP Analysis, Lost Packet Analysis
	



	Hi,
	
	
	
	I am analyzing VoIP capture files in Wireshark 1.4 and am confused about the RTP analysis results.
	
	
	
	The jitter results match what I expect, but the packet loss results do not.
	
	
	
	I know for a fact that the file contains no packet loss and yet the RTP analysis screen reports all packets as lost "negatively" (and gives an odd -100% value).
	
	
	
	Any ideas?
	
	
	
	Thanks,
	
	Barry
	
	
	___________________________________________________________________________
	Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
	Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
	Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
	            mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe