Doesn't g729 use less bandwidth than g711? So it should have better performance and resource management.
----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Graziano <[email protected]> To: Francis Tinio <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Picher <[email protected]>; sipx-users <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Nov 02 19:25:25 2009 Subject: Re: [sipx-users] codecs supported? Correct in that g729 will_not_work. Difference between uLaw and aLaw is not that important for your ITSP. uLaw is a US & Japan standard, aLaw is a Euro standard. aLaw is meant to be easier for PC's to understand, but they use approximately the same bandwidth and are both generally supported by most ITSP's. Your ITSP "should not" care what codec you use as long as you use one that is supported. Every time a call is placed or received there is a negotiation that takes place to determine what each side can do "an offer is made, g711ulaw, if it is accepted, it is agreed upon and uses that", in a nutshell. It might also be worth mentioning that G711 codecs are "free" whereas G729 requires a license or royalty to be paid. On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Francis Tinio <[email protected]> wrote: ok let me know if i get this right. for my DID origination, they support using G729 codec. So if I set G729 in my ITSP (gafachi) sipx will be able to negotiate with the codec? Or do you mean that my ITSP would have to be explicitly configured to use G711 ULAW (or ALAW not sure what's the difference is)? I tried doing G729 in my ITSP and the calls will not go to my sipx server. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
