Re: [cisco-voip] UCCX 9 prompts gibberish
James, > No, just for G711. I don't have a solution for G729. Hopefully someone else > does. G.729 is patent encumbered, so no "free" (beer or otherwise) solutions there. Also, CCIT U-Law is G.711 u-law is PCM u-law is PCMU. There must be one of these in Audacity. -- Andreas Sikkema ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] Video Architecture
> I also see no issues with video on this list. Most of the (open?) VoIP protocols have had video support for over 15 years, I think video has been part of VoIP all along. "We" just didn't realize it or didn't want to know. I also see no problem. -- Andreas Sikkema ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE SIP behind NAT Router
Euan, The SIP messages are showing the local private IP address of the LAN (see below) gi0/0 address which the SP is rejecting. I have tried to bind the SIP messages to a loopback with the public address and it is now showing the correct address in the invites etc. but I am not seeing any replies from the SIP provider other than my invites out. I think you need to enable or disable the SIP ALG functionality on your Draytek depending on what the scenario is you're trying to solve. See for instance http://www.elantelecom.com/technical-assistance/disable-sip-alg-draytek/ (first result for me on googling sip alg draytek) Now why do suppliers continue to validate IP addresses in the contents of SIP messages? For blackhats it's easy to fix that, for us good guys it only adds to the problems of interworking while adding no value at all. -- Andreas Sikkema ___ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
