[cisco-voip] SIP to PRI transcoding

[James Buchanan]

Does your carrier support T.38 over SIP? If not, you might want to change
SIP carriers.


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List <
blake.mailinglist at pfankuch.me> wrote:

>  I am working with a faxing system that is giving me more nightmares than
> I can even count…  I am working with a software system that sends FoIP
> using T.38 and V.17 faxing.  It does not support G711 fallback, and that
> has been giving us fits like you would not believe our upstream carrier.
> The specific issue lies in paths which do not support T.38 and are trying
> to do G711 fallback.  I have a pair of 3825 router configured as UBE’s in
> an HSRP configuration.
>
>
>
> I am looking to mitigate some of these issues by implementing a couple of
> TDM PRI’s (one to each device).  These PRI’s will be configured in an
> active/passive failover group from the carrier side uplinked into the
> existing 3825 UBE’s.
>
>
>
> My question is on the conversion as I have never done this before.  I know
> this will pull a DSP (or a couple) for each transcoding session, so I have
> 8 PVDM 64’s I am going to throw in these routers.  I still need to be able
> to support SIP in case of a PRI failure as both PRI’s come in on the same
> channelized DS3.
>
>
>
> Has anyone had to do this before?  Specifically with T.38.  Had good luck
> with it or should I look towards the solution I planned for next year which
> was a pair of ASR1001 routers to act as SBC’s and handle these functions.
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
> Blake
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140520/cac2dc3e/attachment.html>