John Todd wrote:
There was discussion recently (on -dev? on -users?
on IRC?) about how there are some shortcomings on RTP
packetization/transcoding. It appears, though I have
not confirmed this, that trying to move a 20ms G.711
stream from a client, though Asterisk, to a remote
gateway
is any command , shows the current rate of each channel?
--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Kristian Kielhofner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kristian Kielhofner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] changing the size of voice packets
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Igor Goncharovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Igor Goncharovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] changing the size of voice packets
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial
Discussion asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Date: Monday
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Pezhman Lali [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Dear,
is any way to change , the size of voice packets?
I want to increase the quality by decreasing the size of each packets,
because of bandwidth failure.
You can specify size of voice packets in allow line of
Igor Goncharovsky wrote:
You can specify size of voice packets in allow line of sip.conf peer
configuration.
ex.: allow=alaw:30,g729:50
If you are interfacing with any commercial VoIP equipment/media gateway
equipment, do be aware that packetisation durations for G.711u and G.729
that are
On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Igor Goncharovsky wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Pezhman Lali
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear,
is any way to change , the size of voice packets?
I want to increase the quality by decreasing the size of each
packets, because of bandwidth failure.
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail with a 488 Not Acceptable Here. Right?
On Mon, November 10, 2008 2:17 pm, John Todd wrote:
On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Igor Goncharovsky wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Pezhman
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Kristian Kielhofner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends?
What is the status of maxptime in Asterisk?
... or the remote end, for that matter...
--
Kristian Kielhofner
http://blog.krisk.org
http://www.submityoursip.com
http://www.astlinux.org
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail with a 488 Not Acceptable Here. Right?
Depends?
What is the status of maxptime in Asterisk?
--
Kristian Kielhofner
Well, I should say irreconcilably different, not different.
On Mon, November 10, 2008 2:40 pm, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alex Balashov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail
Alex Balashov wrote:
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail with a 488 Not Acceptable Here. Right?
Only if the 'ptime' or 'maxptime' values offered are not legal for the
codec involved; if they are supported by the codec, then 'ptime'
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Alex Balashov wrote:
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail with a 488 Not Acceptable Here. Right?
Only if the 'ptime' or 'maxptime' values offered are not legal for the
codec involved; if they are supported
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Balashov wrote:
If the packetisation durations are different between endpoints, the SDP
offer/answer should fail with a 488 Not Acceptable Here. Right?
Only if the 'ptime' or 'maxptime' values offered are not
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Are you confirming our understanding of the spec or Asterisk's
implementation of the spec?
Well the former, and I hope the latter too, since it should match the
former :-)
--
Kevin P. Fleming
Director of Software Technologies
Digium, Inc. - The Genuine Asterisk
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Are you confirming our understanding of the spec or Asterisk's
implementation of the spec?
Well the former, and I hope the latter too, since it should match the
former :-)
--
Kevin P.
15 matches
Mail list logo