[cisco-voip] Fwd: Cisco ATA Fax Confusion

[Rhodium]

What you saw config wise is a representation of what I have.

I guess I should see if it does a "double" fall back from protocol based pass-through to NSE passthrough.

Would be interesting to note what really happens but if the fall back to NSE does happen as a "catch all", it is not explicitely stated, so Cisco might change its behaviour in future IOS releases.

Thanks for the discussion. :)

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fwd:  Cisco ATA Fax Confusion
> To: "Rhodium" <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 9:15 PM
> Are your calls working in one
> direction only or both ways?  We are all in agreement
> that the ATA only supports NSE based passthrough and I do
> know that the default fax protocol on cisco routers is modem
> passthrough so maybe there's another bit of your config
> that's allowing the call to proceed.
> 
> In the doc you referenced it mentions that no fall-back
> will still allow for the fax to proceed if modem passthrough
> is configured.  Maybe this also applies if fax
> pass-through fallback isn't successful. 
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Rhodium wrote:
> 
> Yep, I am aware of the hyphenations. Been trying to use
> them in the right context if you look at my emails. ;o)
> 
> I don't think the fall back command applies to NSE
> passthrough but protocol based pass-through:
> 
> http://www.cisco.biz/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/vvf_c/cisco_ios_fax_services_over_ip_application_guide/t38.html#wp1156682
> 
> Also, the written documentation I have shows it under
> protocol based pass-through.
> 
> Which led me to ask the question, why is it working? Are
> you sure that it refers to protocol based pass-through and
> not NSE?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>