Media Transport for VoIP

  • Lingfen Sun
  • Is-Haka Mkwawa
  • Emmanuel Jammeh
  • Emmanuel Ifeachor
Part of the Computer Communications and Networks book series (CCN)


TCP and UDP are the most commonly used transport layer protocols. TCP is a connection-oriented, reliable, in-order transport protocol. Its features such as retransmission, flow control and congestion control are not suitable for real-time multimedia applications such as VoIP. UDP is a connectionless and unreliable transport protocol. Its simple header, non-retransmission and non-congestion-control features make it suitable for real-time applications. However, as UDP does not have the sequence number in the UDP header, the media stream packet transferred over UDP may experience duplication or arrive not in the right order. This will cause the received media (e.g., voice or video) unrecognisable or unviewable. The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) was developed to assist the transfer of real-time media streams on top of the unreliable UDP protocol. It has many fields, such as the sequence number (to detect packet loss), the timestamp (to know the location of media packet) and the payload type (to know voice or video codec used). The associated RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) was also developed to assist media control and QoS/QoE management for VoIP applications. This chapter presents the key concepts of RTP and RTCP, together with detailed header analysis based on real trace data using Wireshark. The compressed RTP (cRTP) and bandwidth efficiency issues are also discussed together with illustrative worked examples for VoIP bandwidth calculation.


User Datagram Protocol Transport Control Protocol Consecutive Packet Payload Length Jitter Buffer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Casner S, Jacobson V (1999) Compressing IP/UDP/RTP headers for low-speed serial links. IETF RFC 2508 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman T, Caceres R, Clark A (2003) RTP control protocol extended reports (RTCP XR). IETF RFC 3611 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Information Sciences Institute (1981) Transmission control protocol. IETF RFC 793 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ITU-T (1960) Video coding for low bit rate communication. ITU-T H.263 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koren T, Casner S, et al (2003) Enhanced compressed RTP (CRTP) for links with high delay, packet loss and reordering. IETF RFC 3545 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurose JF, Ross KW (2010) Computer networking, a top–down approach, 5th edn. Pearson Education, Boston. ISBN-10:0-13-136548-7 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perkins C (2003) RTP: audio and video for the Internet. Addison-Wesley, Reading. ISBN:0-672-32249-8 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Postel J (1980) User datagram protocol. IETF RFC 768 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulzrinne H, Casner S (2003) RTP profile for audio and video conferences with minimal control. IETF RFC 3551 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulzrinne H, Casner S, et al. (1996) RTP: a transport protocol for real-time applications. IETF RFC 1889 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulzrinne H, Casner S, et al (2003) RTP: a transport protocol for real-time applications. IETF RFC 3550 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu C (1997) RTP payload format for H.263 video streams. IETF RFC 2190 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lingfen Sun
    • 1
  • Is-Haka Mkwawa
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Jammeh
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Ifeachor
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations