[cisco-voip] Does 12.4(11)T now do H.323 to H.320 conversions?

[Wes Sisk]

Hi Robert,

It is a special feature from your carrier. Normal voice calls only  
take 1x B-channel (64kbps/56kbps depending on how you look at it).   
Video Calls start at 2x B-channel and go up.  I believe the IOS  
feature only support 2xB at this point.

CM may or may not be involved depending on your configuration.  You  
can configure polycom to send call directly to IOS or have it sent to  
CM and then let CM hairpin it off to IOS gw.  There are really 2  
reasons to go through CM:
1. centralized dialing.  Add a DN/pattern on CM and polycom can reach it
2. centralized CDR's.


A video PRI can do a voice only call, but a voice PRI cannot do a  
video call b/c the carrier switch will generally barf on us when we  
request to use 2xB channels.

/Wes

On Jan 18, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Robert Kulagowski wrote:

OK, that means that this is actually a pretty interesting feature.

I don't think I've heard of a "video" PRI that supports bonded
b-channels.  How is that different than a regular PRI?  Does this mean
that I need to call MaBell and get the provisioning changed for my voice
PRI to start experimenting?

Ideally, at a remote site, I'd like to get away from having to get BRIs
for our Polycoms and just connect them to the LAN and use the existing
PRIs on the router when we need to make a call.

Polycom FX (H.323) -- IOS -- PRI

Does CM need to get involved at all?  ie, would I define the Polycom as
a H.323 device?  Internally, I got Video Advantage to make IP calls to
the Polycom without too much trouble, but like I mentioned, there's lots
of assumptions in the document I linked to.

I also had to open a TAC case (605137135) which resulted in ddts's
because of errors in the docs.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip