I have been reading a number of the past threads about G.729 licensing., about
how the registration keys are linked to the network configurations, limited
number of registrations etc, etc.
Is there no reason why the decoding can't be done in with some Asterisk
compatible hardware, so that once
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 00:35 +, Obelix wrote:
I have been reading a number of the past threads about G.729 licensing., about
how the registration keys are linked to the network configurations, limited
number of registrations etc, etc.
Is there no reason why the decoding can't be done in
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 00:35 +, Obelix wrote:
I have been reading a number of the past threads about G.729 licensing., about
how the registration keys are linked to the network configurations, limited
number of registrations etc, etc.
Is there no reason why the decoding can't be done in
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 00:35 +, Obelix wrote:
I have been reading a number of the past threads about G.729 licensing., about
how the registration keys are linked to the network configurations, limited
number of registrations etc, etc.
Is there no
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:19 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
While I do appreciate the lesson in system calls, what does any of this
have to do with the g729 codec? :) Digium's G729 codec (and
registration program) binds your license key to the MAC addresses of the
ethernet adapters
Just gotta watch that you dont have two with the same mac addr in some
networks (some systems and network devices dont care enough others
completly come unglued).
Yeah, like ethernet.
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 21:45 -0600, Tim Pushor wrote:
Just gotta watch that you dont have two with the same mac addr in some
networks (some systems and network devices dont care enough others
completly come unglued).
Yeah, like ethernet.
let me clarify, on an ethernet network some
I'm sorry - that wasn't called for.
For the most part, things get weird with multiple mac addresses on the
same lan, or within the same switched network - but this really isn't on
topic.
Tim
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 21:45 -0600, Tim Pushor wrote:
