[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                         J. Lazzaro
Request for Comments: 4571                                   UC Berkeley
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2006

               Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
                and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets
                  over Connection-Oriented Transport

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   This memo defines a method for framing Real-time Transport Protocol
   (RTP) and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets onto connection-
   oriented transport (such as TCP).  The memo also defines how session
   descriptions may specify RTP streams that use the framing method.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Terminology ................................................2
   2. The Framing Method ..............................................2
   3. Packet Stream Properties ........................................3
   4. Session Descriptions for RTP/AVP over TCP .......................3
   5. Example .........................................................5
   6. Congestion Control ..............................................6
   7. Acknowledgements ................................................6
   8. Security Considerations .........................................6
   9. IANA Considerations .............................................7
   10. Normative References ...........................................7

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

1. Introduction

   The Audio/Video Profile (AVP, [RFC3550]) for the Real-time Transport
   Protocol (RTP, [RFC3551]) does not define a method for framing RTP
   and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets onto connection-oriented
   transport protocols (such as TCP).  However, earlier versions of
   RTP/AVP did define a framing method, and this method is in use in
   several implementations.

   In this memo, we document the framing method that was defined by
   earlier versions of RTP/AVP.  In addition, we introduce a mechanism
   for a session description [SDP] to signal the use of the framing
   method.  Note that session description signalling for the framing
   method is new and was not defined in earlier versions of RTP/AVP.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119

2.  The Framing Method

   Figure 1 defines the framing method.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |             LENGTH            |  RTP or RTCP packet ...       |

        Figure 1: The bit field definition of the framing method

   A 16-bit unsigned integer LENGTH field, coded in network byte order
   (big-endian), begins the frame.  If LENGTH is non-zero, an RTP or
   RTCP packet follows the LENGTH field.  The value coded in the LENGTH
   field MUST equal the number of octets in the RTP or RTCP packet.
   Zero is a valid value for LENGTH, and it codes the null packet.

   This framing method does not use frame markers (i.e., an octet of
   constant value that would precede the LENGTH field).  Frame markers
   are useful for detecting errors in the LENGTH field.  In lieu of a
   frame marker, receivers SHOULD monitor the RTP and RTCP header fields
   whose values are predictable (for example, the RTP version number).
   See Appendix A.1 of [RFC3550] for additional guidance.

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

3.  Packet Stream Properties

   In most respects, the framing method does not specify properties
   above the level of a single packet.  In particular, Section 2 does
   not specify the following:

   Bi-directional issues

      Section 2 defines a framing method for use in one direction on a
      connection.  The relationship between framed packets flowing in a
      defined direction and in the reverse direction is not specified.

   Packet loss and reordering

      The reliable nature of a connection does not imply that a framed
      RTP stream has a contiguous sequence number ordering.  For
      example, if the connection is used to tunnel a UDP stream through
      a network middlebox that only passes TCP, the sequence numbers in
      the framed stream reflect any packet loss or reordering on the UDP
      portion of the end-to-end flow.

   Out-of-band semantics

      Section 2 does not define the RTP or RTCP semantics for closing a
      TCP socket, or of any other "out of band" signal for the

   Memos that normatively include the framing method MAY specify these
   properties.  For example, Section 4 of this memo specifies these
   properties for RTP/AVP sessions specified in session descriptions.

   In one respect, the framing protocol does indeed specify a property
   above the level of a single packet.  If a direction of a connection
   carries RTP packets, the streams carried in this direction MUST
   support the use of multiple synchronization sources (SSRCs) in those
   RTP packets.  If a direction of a connection carries RTCP packets,
   the streams carried in this direction MUST support the use of
   multiple SSRCs in those RTCP packets.

4.  Session Descriptions for RTP/AVP over TCP

   Session management protocols that use the Session Description
   Protocol [SDP] in conjunction with the Offer/Answer Protocol
   [RFC3264] MUST use the methods described in [COMEDIA] to set up
   RTP/AVP streams over TCP.  In this case, the use of Offer/Answer is
   REQUIRED, as the setup methods described in [COMEDIA] rely on

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

   In principle, [COMEDIA] is capable of setting up RTP sessions for any
   RTP profile.  In practice, each profile has unique issues that must
   be considered when applying [COMEDIA] to set up streams for the

   In this memo, we restrict our focus to the Audio/Video Profile (AVP,
   [RFC3551]).  Below, we define a token value ("TCP/RTP/AVP") that
   signals the use of RTP/AVP in a TCP session.  We also define the
   operational procedures that a TCP/RTP/AVP stream MUST follow.

   We expect that other standards-track memos will appear to support the
   use of the framing method with other RTP profiles.  The support memo
   for a new profile MUST define a token value for the profile, using
   the style we used for AVP.  Thus, for profile xyz, the token value
   MUST be "TCP/RTP/xyz".  The memo SHOULD adopt the operational
   procedures we define below for AVP, unless these procedures are in
   some way incompatible with the profile.

   The remainder of this section describes how to setup and use an AVP
   stream in a TCP session.  Figure 2 shows the syntax of a media (m=)
   line [SDP] of a session description:

      "m=" media SP port ["/" integer] SP proto 1*(SP fmt) CRLF

       Figure 2: Syntax for an SDP media (m=) line (from [SDP])

   The <proto> token value "TCP/RTP/AVP" specifies an RTP/AVP [RFC3550]
   [RFC3551] stream that uses the framing method over TCP.

   The <fmt> tokens that follow <proto> MUST be unique unsigned integers
   in the range 0 to 127.  The <fmt> tokens specify an RTP payload type
   associated with the stream.

   In all other respects, the session description syntax for the framing
   method is identical to [COMEDIA].

   The TCP <port> on the media line carries RTP packets.  If a media
   stream uses RTCP, a second connection carries RTCP packets.  The port
   for the RTCP connection is chosen using the algorithms defined in
   [SDP] or by the mechanism defined in [RFC3605].

   The TCP connections MAY carry bi-directional traffic, following the
   semantics defined in [COMEDIA].  Both directions of a connection MUST
   carry the same type of packets (RTP or RTCP).  The packets MUST
   exclusively code the RTP or RTCP streams specified on the media
   line(s) associated with the connection.

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

   As noted in [RFC3550], the use of RTP without RTCP is strongly
   discouraged.  However, if a sender does not wish to send RTCP packets
   in a media session, the sender MUST add the lines "b=RS:0" AND
   "b=RR:0" to the media description (from [RFC3556]).

   If the session descriptions of the offer AND the answer both contain
   the "b=RS:0" AND "b=RR:0" lines, an RTCP TCP flow for the media
   session MUST NOT be created by either endpoint in the session.  In
   all other cases, endpoints MUST establish two TCP connections for an
   RTP/AVP stream, one for RTP and one for RTCP.

   As described in [RFC3264], the use of the "sendonly" or "sendrecv"
   attribute in an offer (or answer) indicates that the offerer (or
   answerer) intends to send RTP packets on the RTP TCP connection.  The
   use of the "recvonly" or "sendrecv" attributes in an offer (or
   answer) indicates that the offerer (or answerer) wishes to receive
   RTP packets on the RTP TCP connection.

5.  Example

   The session descriptions in Figures 3 and 4 define a TCP RTP/AVP

   o=first 2520644554 2838152170 IN IP4 first.example.net
   t=0 0
   c=IN IP4
   m=audio 9 TCP/RTP/AVP 11

          Figure 3: TCP session description for the first participant

   o=second 2520644554 2838152170 IN IP4 second.example.net
   t=0 0
   c=IN IP4
   m=audio 16112 TCP/RTP/AVP 10 11

          Figure 4: TCP session description for the second participant

   The session descriptions define two parties that participate in a
   connection-oriented RTP/AVP session.  The first party (Figure 3) is
   capable of receiving stereo L16 streams (static payload type 11).

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

   The second party (Figure 4) is capable of receiving mono (static
   payload type 10) or stereo L16 streams.

   The "setup" attribute in Figure 3 specifies that the first party is
   "active" and initiates connections, and the "setup" attribute in
   Figure 4 specifies that the second party is "passive" and accepts
   connections [COMEDIA].

   The first party connects to the network address ( and port
   (16112) of the second party.  Once the connection is established, it
   is used bi-directionally: the first party sends framed RTP packets to
   the second party in one direction of the connection, and the second
   party sends framed RTP packets to the first party in the other
   direction of the connection.

   The first party also initiates an RTCP TCP connection to port 16113
   (16112 + 1, as defined in [SDP]) of the second party.  Once the
   connection is established, the first party sends framed RTCP packets
   to the second party in one direction of the connection, and the
   second party sends framed RTCP packets to the first party in the
   other direction of the connection.

6.  Congestion Control

   The RTP congestion control requirements are defined in [RFC3550].  As
   noted in [RFC3550], all transport protocols used on the Internet need
   to address congestion control in some way, and RTP is not an

   In addition, the congestion control requirements for the Audio/Video
   Profile are defined in [RFC3551].  The basic congestion control
   requirement defined in [RFC3551] is that RTP sessions should compete
   fairly with TCP flows that share the network.  As the framing method
   uses TCP, it competes fairly with other TCP flows by definition.

7.  Acknowledgements

   This memo, in part, documents discussions on the AVT mailing list
   about TCP and RTP.  Thanks to all of the participants in these

8.  Security Considerations

   Implementors should carefully read the Security Considerations
   sections of the RTP [RFC3550] and RTP/AVP [RFC3551] documents, as
   most of the issues discussed in these sections directly apply to RTP
   streams framed over TCP.

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

   Session descriptions that specify connection-oriented media sessions
   (such as the example session shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Section 5)
   raise unique security concerns for streaming media.  The Security
   Considerations section of [COMEDIA] describes these issues in detail.

   Below, we discuss security issues that are unique to the framing
   method defined in Section 2.

   Attackers may send framed packets with large LENGTH values to exploit
   security holes in applications.  For example, a C implementation may
   declare a 1500-byte array as a stack variable, and use LENGTH as the
   bound on the loop that reads the framed packet into the array.  This
   code would work fine for friendly applications that use Etherframe-
   sized RTP packets, but may be open to exploit by an attacker.  Thus,
   an implementation needs to handle packets of any length, from a NULL
   packet (LENGTH == 0) to the maximum-length packet holding 64K octets
   (LENGTH = 0xFFFF).

9.  IANA Considerations

   [SDP] defines the syntax of session description media lines.  We
   reproduce this definition in Figure 2 of Section 4 of this memo.  In
   Section 4, we define a new token value for the <proto> field of media
   lines: "TCP/RTP/AVP".  Section 4 specifies the semantics associated
   with the <proto> field token, and Section 5 shows an example of its
   use in a session description.

10.  Normative References

   [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
             Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
             Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
             Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
             July 2003.

   [COMEDIA] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the
             Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September

   [SDP]     Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins.  "SDP: Session
             Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

   [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
             with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June

   [RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
             in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, October

   [RFC3556] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
             Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth", RFC
             3556, July 2003.

Author's Address

   John Lazzaro
   UC Berkeley
   CS Division
   315 Soda Hall
   Berkeley CA 94720-1776

   EMail: lazzaro@cs.berkeley.edu

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 4571     RTP & RTCP over Connection-Oriented Transport     July 2006

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Lazzaro                     Standards Track                     [Page 9]