Tech-invite  3GPPspace  IETFspace
21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  4‑5x

Content for  TS 26.114  Word version:  18.8.0

Top   Top   Up   Prev   Next
0…   3…   4…   5…   6…   6.2.3…   6.2.5…   6.2.7…   6.2.10…   7…   7.5…   8…   9…   10…   10.2.1.6…   10.2.2…   10.3…   10.4…   11…   12…   12.3…   12.7…   13a…   16…   16.5…   17…   18…   19…   A…   A.3…   A.4…   A.5…   A.10…   A.14…   A.15…   B…   C…   C.1.3…   C.1.3.5   C.2…   D   E…   E.18…   E.31…   G…   K…   L…   M…   N…   O…   P…   P.3   Q…   R…   S…   T…   U…   V…   W…   X…   Y…   Y.6…   Y.6.4…   Y.6.5…   Y.7… 
X  Example Maximum Packet Loss Rate (Max. PLR) Values for Setting CHEM Handover Thresholds  X.1 Maximum Packet Loss Rate (Max. PLR) for Speech  X.1.1 Max. PLR recommendation without Application Layer Redundancy  X.1.2 Max. PLR recommendation with Application Layer Redundancy  X.2 SDP Examples of the CHEM Feature (informative)  X.2.1 General  X.2.2 Example of Adaptation to Packet Losses without Application Layer Redundancy  X.2.3 Example of Adaptation to Packet Losses with Application Layer Redundancy  X.2.4 Example of Maximum End-to-End Packet Loss Rate 
...

 

X  Example Maximum Packet Loss Rate (Max. PLR) Values for Setting CHEM Handover Thresholds |R16|  p. 469

X.1  Maximum Packet Loss Rate (Max. PLR) for Speech  p. 469

Based on the 3GPP EVS Selection and Characterization results that included AMR-WB, AMR-WB with G718IO, and EVS codec, this clause provides an example set of Max. PLR operating points that the terminal may indicate to the PCRF/PCF.

X.1.1  Max. PLR recommendation without Application Layer Redundancy  p. 469

Table X.1 provides example Maximum PLR operating points based on the EVS Selection and Characterization experiment results in TR 26.952 and TR 26.959.
Codec Robustness Parameter Maximum End-to-end Packet Loss Rate
AMR-WBNormal1.5%
AMR-WB/G718 IO, EVS AMR-WB IOMedium3%
EVS WB, SWBHigh6%
EVS WB, SWB Channel AwareExtreme High9%
Up

X.1.2  Max. PLR recommendation with Application Layer Redundancy  p. 469

Application layer redundancy can work in conjunction with any of the aforementioned codec modes in Table X.1.
Table X.2 provides example Maximum PLR operating points with and without application layer redundancy applicable to EVS codec based on informal objective and subjective results in Annex A of TR 26.959.
The example in Table X.2 includes 100% application layer redundancy with offset 2, resulting in (2 x Bitrate). It should be noted that the relationship to path loss when operating at twice the bit rate (with 100% application layer redundancy) is not accounted in the Max. PLR recommendation in Table X.2.
Codec Robustness Parameter Maximum End-to-end Packet Loss Rate
No application layer redundancy, EVS at bitrate of R kb/s -X %
With 100% application layer redundancy, EVS at bitrate of 2xR kb/s, Offset = 2. -X + (2 to 5) %
Up

X.2  SDP Examples of the CHEM Feature (informative)  p. 470

X.2.1  General  p. 470

The following examples illustrate the use of the SDP attributes and parameters specified for the CHEM feature.

X.2.2  Example of Adaptation to Packet Losses without Application Layer Redundancy  p. 470

The example in Table X.2.2-1 demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.2, the receiver in the offering MTSI client supports and offers to request adaptation to different codec configurations to provide different levels of packet loss robustness without using application layer redundancy.
SDP offer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 98 99 100 101 105 106
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:98 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:98 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:99 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:99 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:100 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:100 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:101 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:101 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=rtpmap:106 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:106 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
The example in Table X.2.2-2 is one possible response to the offer in Table X.2.2-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.2, the receiver in the answering MTSI client also supports and negotiates requesting adaptation to different codec configurations to provide different levels of packet loss robustness without using application layer redundancy. During the ensuing session both the offerer MTSI client and answerer MTSI client request robustness adaptation without application layer redundancy. The PCRF/PCFs should choose to use more robust handover thresholds that do not rely on application layer redundancy in both the uplink and downlink directions.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
The example in Table X.2.2-3 is another possible response to the offer in Table X.2.2-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.2, the receiver in the answering MTSI client does not support requesting adaptation to different codec configurations to provide different levels of packet loss robustness. In the ensuing session, media robustness adaptation is not enabled in either direction of media transmission so the PCRF/PCFs should not use more robust handover thresholds in either the uplink or downlink direction.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
Up

X.2.3  Example of Adaptation to Packet Losses with Application Layer Redundancy  p. 471

The example in Table X.2.3-1 demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.3, the receiver in the offering MTSI client supports and offers to request adaptation to different codec configurations to provide different levels of packet loss robustness using application layer redundancy.
SDP offer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 98 99 100 101 105 106
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:98 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:98 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:99 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:99 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:100 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:100 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:101 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:101 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=rtpmap:106 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:106 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt:ALR
The example in Table X.2.3-2 is one possible response to the offer in Table X.2.3-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.3, the receiver in the answering MTSI client also supports and negotiates requesting adaptation to different codec configurations to provide different levels of packet loss robustness using application layer redundancy. During the ensuing session both the offerer MTSI client and answerer MTSI client request robustness adaptation and can use the in-band RTP CMR codepoints specified in clause W.3 to request application layer redundancy. The PCRF/PCFs should choose to use more robust handover thresholds (both using application layer redundancy or not) in both the uplink and downlink directions.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt:ALR
The example in Table X.2.3-3 is another possible response to the offer in Table X.2.3-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.2 and clause W.3, the receiver in the answering MTSI client supports requesting adaptation to different codec configurations but not using application layer redundancy. During the ensuing session both the offerer MTSI client and answerer MTSI client request robustness adaptation without application layer redundancy. The PCRF/PCFs should choose to use more robust handover thresholds that do not rely on application layer redundancy in both the uplink and downlink directions.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
Up

X.2.4  Example of Maximum End-to-End Packet Loss Rate  p. 473

The example in Table X.2.4-1 demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.4.2, the media receiver in the offering MTSI terminal receiver can handle up to 3.50% end-to-end PLR for the EVS codec, proposes to use 1.50% PLR on its downlink and 2.00% for its uplink, and can handle up to 2.00% end-to-end PLR for the AMR-WB codec, proposes to use 0.75% PLR on its downlink and 1.25% for its uplink. The example does not use application layer redundancy but could easily apply to sessions using application layer redundancy by including the ALR parameter in the PLR_adapt attribute as specified in clause W.3.
SDP offer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 98 99 100 101 105 106
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:98 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:98 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:99 AMR-WB/16000/1
a=fmtp:99 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:100 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:100 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:101 AMR/8000/1
a=fmtp:101 mode-change-capability=2; max-red=200; octet-align=1
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=rtpmap:106 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:106 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
a=MAXimum-e2e-PLR:97 350:150/200
a=MAXimum-e2e-PLR:98 200:75/125
a=MAXimum-e2e-PLR:99 200:75/125
The example in Table X.2.4-2 is one possible response to the offer in Table X.2.4-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.4.3, the receiver in the answering MTSI terminal supports up to 4.00% end-to-end PLR for the EVS codec, proposes to use 2.00% PLR on both its downlink and uplink. This leaves 1.50% for the downlink and 2.00% for the uplink to the offerering MTSI terminal which matches what was proposed in the SDP offer.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
a=MAXimum-e2e-PLR:97 400:200/200
The example in Table X.2.4-3 is another possible response to the offer in Table X.2.4-1 and demonstrates how, as specified in clause W.4.3, the receiver in the answering MTSI terminal supports up to 3.50% end-to-end PLR for the EVS codec, proposes to use 1.75% PLR on both its downlink and uplink. This leaves 1.75% for each of the uplink and downlink to the offerering MTSI terminal which is higher than the downlink PLR (i.e., the answerer is being more generous to the offerer) and lower than the uplink PLR (i.e., the answerer not agreeing to let the offerer be greedy) proposed in the SDP offer.
SDP answer 
m=audio 49152 RTP/AVP 97 105
b=AS:50
b=RS:0
b=RR:2500
a=rtpmap:97 EVS/16000/1
a=fmtp:97 br=5.9-24.4; bw=nb-swb; max-red=200
a=rtpmap:105 telephone-event/16000
a=fmtp:105 0-15
a=ptime:20
a=maxptime:240
a=PLR_adapt
a=MAXimum-e2e-PLR:97 350:175/175
Up

Up   Top   ToC