Re: [cisco-voip] Transcoding question
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 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 09:16 PM To: Daniel Pagan ,Ryan Huff ,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
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
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 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
