Re: [Live-devel] Lost consideration about SSM on Windows XP with VS6.

2007-11-22 Thread Ross Finlayson
>Do you mean according to RFC 2326 that an RTSP server should or must >explicitly specify whether the session is unicast or multicast (by >providing a multicast address) rather than give the client a chance >to choose either? Yes. It is always the server - not the client - that decides whether

Re: [Live-devel] Lost consideration about SSM on Windows XP with VS6.

2007-11-21 Thread Brain Lai
2007/11/22, Ross Finlayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I don't follow this. The "forceMulticastOnUnspecified" hack - which > is used only if a multicast address was *not* specified in SDP - > cannot possibly be expected to work for SSM sessions, because, for > such sessions, the source filter address

Re: [Live-devel] Lost consideration about SSM on Windows XP with VS6.

2007-11-21 Thread Ross Finlayson
>The fourth parameter "forceMulticastOnUnspecified" of >RTSPClient::setupMediaSubsession() will guide the client agent to >setup a multicast subsession if the IP address is not specified in >SDP. The client will then join the multicast group later by calling >subsession.setDestinations(fServerA

[Live-devel] Lost consideration about SSM on Windows XP with VS6.

2007-11-21 Thread Brain Lai
Dear Sir: The fourth parameter "forceMulticastOnUnspecified" of RTSPClient::setupMediaSubsession() will guide the client agent to setup a multicast subsession if the IP address is not specified in SDP. The client will then join the multicast group later by calling subsession.setDestinations(fServe