On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:42 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
Chris Shaw wrote:
- Channel Support:
IAX2 in asterisk
IAX2 in libiax2
Other IP channels in asterisk (RTP-based ones, I guess are all that
is
left).
CNG/VAD and DTX in SIP is a must if * is to be taken seriously as a
complete
solution... As
> I have been reading the RFCs and I'm a bit more familiar with how it works
> now although the algorithms are a bit over my head. I am somewhat new to
> RTP/VoIP, but I have a strong telecom/networking background so it makes
> things a bit easier to understand since they share a lot of common
> fe
> This is nothing to do with SIP. It is an RTP issue, common to everything
> which uses RTP - SIP and H.323 included.
I have been reading the RFCs and I'm a bit more familiar with how it works
now although the algorithms are a bit over my head. I am somewhat new to
RTP/VoIP, but I have a strong te
Chris Shaw wrote:
- Channel Support:
IAX2 in asterisk
IAX2 in libiax2
Other IP channels in asterisk (RTP-based ones, I guess are all that is
left).
CNG/VAD and DTX in SIP is a must if * is to be taken seriously as a complete
solution... As much as we all hate it's complexity and wish that
Nevermind, DUH, I was reading it wrong, it states that they DO NOT contain
CNG algorithms, it describes a way to send CNG on codecs that do not contain
CNG algorithms natively...
-Chris
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.
I'm not very familiar with programming codecs, but from my understanding and
reading RFC3389, aren't the VAD/CNG and DTX algorithms already built into
certain codecs like G.711u/a and G.229(a)? If so, what would be required to
activate them from *? Just some rewriting of SDP/RTP to send and recieve
>- Channel Support:
>IAX2 in asterisk
>IAX2 in libiax2
> Other IP channels in asterisk (RTP-based ones, I guess are all that is
left).
CNG/VAD and DTX in SIP is a must if * is to be taken seriously as a complete
solution... As much as we all hate it's complexity and wish that everything
I'm also interested in this, as the other Steve knows.
Anyone in the re-worked jitter-buffer/PLC/DTX crowd besides me going to
be at astricon?
We can at least start working there on requirements. I think I've
wrote this before, but here's what I'd _really_ like to see as
requirements for a
On 30 Aug 2004 at 10:38, Steve Underwood wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On 30 Aug 2004 at 0:26, Steve Underwood wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second
> >>>instead of the incoming audio? Were
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2004 at 0:26, Steve Underwood wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available when it
started? Even if you had no card you could use the ztdumm
On 30 Aug 2004 at 0:26, Steve Underwood wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
> >of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available when it
> >started? Even if you had no card you could use the ztdummy module
> >and ev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available when it
started? Even if you had no card you could use the ztdummy module
and even though that might be off by a bit, surely it'd sound better
Michael Manousos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kevin Walsh wrote:
> > Michael Manousos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > a) The transmitter detected silence and sent nothing but the last CN
> > > packet was lost. According to the above interpretations, the receiver
> > > will try to conseal a packet loss
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Michael Manousos wrote:
> I hope that the above issues will start a discussion and result to a
> solution, no just for PLC, but also for the DTX operation.
Yeah - my goal for a reworked jitter buffer includes DTX and PLC. And
other TLAs ;-)
Steve
___
Kevin Walsh wrote:
Michael Manousos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look at the RTP stack of the receiver. When a packet is received, there
are two cases:
a) An RTP packet carrying voice frames is received. In that case the
decoder will play the voice frames.
b) A CN (Comfort Noise) packet is received.
Michael Manousos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Look at the RTP stack of the receiver. When a packet is received, there
> are two cases:
>
> a) An RTP packet carrying voice frames is received. In that case the
> decoder will play the voice frames.
> b) A CN (Comfort Noise) packet is received. In that
Kevin Walsh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004 at 2:33, Kevin Walsh wrote:
There is no packet loss concealment in Asterisk at this time.
Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available when it
started? Even
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jorge Verastegui G wrote:
> Have the astesrisk and digium people implemented PLC?
No
> Are
> they implmementing it now?
I want to but just haven't got to it yet.
Steve
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://l
On 27 Aug 2004 at 5:56, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 27 Aug 2004 at 2:33, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> > > There is no packet loss concealment in Asterisk at this time.
> > >
> > Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
> > of the incoming audio? Were
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2004 at 2:33, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> > There is no packet loss concealment in Asterisk at this time.
> >
> Why doesn't asterisk clock to the 1000 interrupts per second instead
> of the incoming audio? Were there no interrupts available when it
> started? Even i
On 27 Aug 2004 at 2:33, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> Jorge Verastegui G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I've been using VoIP over a not so reliable net: I usually
> > get a 5% to 10% packet loss and a very high jitter. I tried
> > several codecs and parameters, and the only thing left to
> > test is PLC (Pac
Jorge Verastegui G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been using VoIP over a not so reliable net: I usually
> get a 5% to 10% packet loss and a very high jitter. I tried
> several codecs and parameters, and the only thing left to
> test is PLC (Packet Loss Cancellement).
>
There is no packet loss con
22 matches
Mail list logo
