<div>I regularly see single gateways handle all functions (PSTN termination, conferencing, transcoding) for sites of all sizes. I know of nothing [design-wise] preventing you from doing this. In fact, I can think of some very large installations I've seen that were done by advanced services where 3845's were being used to terminate 10-12 PRI's plus handle a few hundred transcoding sessions.</div>
<div><br clear="all">Matthew Saskin<br><a href="mailto:msaskin@gmail.com">msaskin@gmail.com</a><br>203-253-9571<br><br>July 18, 2010 - 1500m swim (in the hudson), 40k bike, 10k run<br>Please support the Leukemia & Lyphoma Society<br>
<a href="http://pages.teamintraining.org/nyc/nyctri10/msaskin">http://pages.teamintraining.org/nyc/nyctri10/msaskin</a><br><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Rhodium <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk">rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi Peter,<br><br>Thank you for your reply.<br><br>I dug out a report from Cisco Advanced Services that stated that CUBEs should only be used for SIP trunks and not for transcoding/mtp. Knew I read something somewhere. Just not the details... :)<br>
<br>So we are all definite that for an ISDN GW, we can use re-use the DSPs for transcoding in line with Cisco's recommendations? I want to recommend getting a dedicated router for these functions but need to justify the cost so if there are no design recommendations, then I guess I can just put it all on one box.<br>
<br>Regards,<br><br>J<br><br><br>--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Peter Slow <<a href="mailto:peter.slow@gmail.com">peter.slow@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> From: Peter Slow <<a href="mailto:peter.slow@gmail.com">peter.slow@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Transcoding/Conferencing on the same ISDN Gateway<br>> To: "Rhodium" <<a href="mailto:rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk">rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk</a>><br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 5:02 PM<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">> That is not necessarily correct. It<br>> depends heavily on the type of<br>> gateway you're talking about, and the number of transcoding<br>> or<br>> conferencing sessions you might be needing.<br>
><br>> -peter<br>><br>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Rhodium <<a href="mailto:rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk">rhodium_uk@yahoo.co.uk</a>><br>> wrote:<br>> > Hi Experts, :)<br>> ><br>> > I am sure I read somewhere in a design doc or the SRND<br>
> that it is not advocated to put transcoding or conferencing<br>> resources on a voice gateway handling about 150 calls.<br>> ><br>> > Am I recalling right or are the old brain cells<br>> getting weaker with age.<br>
> ><br>> > If that is correct, a link would be appreciated as I<br>> can't find it.<br>> ><br>> > Regards,<br>> ><br>> > Jason<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>> > cisco-voip mailing list<br>> > <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>> > <a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
> ><br>><br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>