[cisco-voip] t.38

[Ted Nugent]

Thanks for clarifying Nate, that's right, I misspoke.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org>wrote:

>  VG224 is not the limiting factor on NSE based standards based (protocol
> based).  It’s the control protocol, where SCCP can only do NSE, and the
> others can do standards.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Ted Nugent
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 2:29 PM
> *To:* Scott Voll
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] t.38****
>
> ** **
>
> Possibly, depending how your vg224s and PSTN gateways are configured...
> Last I knew VG224 only supports T.38 NSE, not standards based T.38 so be
> careful of that. Changing the fax protocol should be a coordinated effort
> between the PSTN gateway and the Analog gateways to make sure nothing
> breaks.****
>
>  ****
>
> Here's a good writeup on the supported fax protocols with sample configs.*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
>
> http://www.icciev.com/1/post/2011/9/adding-vg224-to-cucm-80-as-sccp-or-mgcp-gateway-differences-and-configurations-part-1.html
> ****
>
>
>
>
>  ****
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> I have faxes running through VG224's on my network.  if I turn on t.38
> support will that brake them?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Scott****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120831/82478aa8/attachment.html>