IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent terminations

"Carl Rutter" <crutter@telica.com> Wed, 03 April 2002 01:20 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10731 for <megaco-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA29960; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA29930 for <megaco@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:54:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wench.telica.com (bouncer.telica.com [4.19.224.197]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10107 for <megaco@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:54:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CRHOMEPC ([10.0.104.27]) by wench.telica.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GQDA0N74; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:54:02 -0500
From: Carl Rutter <crutter@telica.com>
To: "Chuong N. Nguyen" <Chuong.Nguyen@alcatel.com>, megaco@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent terminations
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:51:08 -0500
Message-ID: <001901c1daa9$a4aeeca0$0300a8c0@telica.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C1DA7F.BBD8E4A0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3CAA49A5.ABEBF2C1@alcatel.com>
Sender: megaco-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: megaco-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Media Gateway Control <megaco.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org

I can't think of an application where you'd want to do that.
Silence suppression really wouldn't make sense for a TDM-TDM
which is hairpined at the CO.  The DS0 is dedicated.
The advantage of Silent suppression it to limit the RTP traffic on the
IP side, which you wouldn't have in that case.

Maybe if you wanted to inject Comfort Noise instead of background
noice in the TDM-TDM call??

Carl
  -----Original Message-----
  From: megaco-admin@ietf.org [mailto:megaco-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Chuong N. Nguyen
  Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:16 PM
  To: megaco@ietf.org
  Subject: Re: [Megaco] Local/Remote descriptors and Permanent terminations


  Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
    I've had a message pointing out the existence of
    draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-05.txt.  Specifying this payload type as well as
G.711
    would indicate the use of silence suppression implicitly.  That covers
RTP
    transport.  For ATM we have the a=silenceSupp attribute defined in RFC
3108.
    Do we need anything for TDM?


  What if someone wanted to make a TDM-TDM, hairpin call?
  Would silenceSupp be used for such a call?
  If yes, then what?



--
  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: Chuong.Nguyen@usa.alcatel.com
  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    (972) 519-4613
  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email