Thanks Dainel! I probably knew that at some point,  but I couldn't remember for 
the life of me!  Makes total sense.

Thanks,

Ryan

-------- Original Message --------
From: Daniel Pagan <dpa...@fidelus.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 09:16 PM
To: Daniel Pagan <dpa...@fidelus.com>,Ryan Huff 
<ryanh...@outlook.com>,cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Transcoding question

>For clarity, by “higher bandwidth codec” I meant to say higher bit-rate codec, 
>or codec of higher bandwidth consumption.
>
>- Dan
>
>From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
>Daniel Pagan
>Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:08 PM
>To: Ryan Huff; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Transcoding question
>
>Hey Ryan how’s it going? Transcoder allocated by CUCM comes from the side 
>using a higher bandwidth codec, regardless if it’s the calling or called 
>party, with the intention to avoid streaming a high bandwidth consuming codec 
>over a WAN connection – keeping it local to the LAN. Of course, this isn’t 
>always true, such as due to a local transcoding resource being entirely 
>nonexistent or a misconfiguration of the MRG/MRGLs.
>
>Hope this helps answer your question.
>
>- Dan
>
>From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan 
>Huff
>Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:11 PM
>To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
>Subject: [cisco-voip] Transcoding question
>
>
>When xcoding is required in the call setup, which side is transcoded? The 
>called party or the calling party?
>
>Thanks
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Reply via email to