-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Callweaver-dev] Default to additional RTP payload type 
2 handling for RFC3551-violating G.726 codec peers?]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:52:41 +0100
From: Michel de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi Tom,

In Twinkle you can set the RTP payload type for G.726-32 in
your user profile. The default is 104. But you can set it
to 2 if you want to connect to a device that uses that
deprecated value.

/Michel

thomas schorpp wrote:
> see attachment.
> 
> y
> tom
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> Re: [Callweaver-dev] Default to additional RTP payload type 2 handling
> for RFC3551-violating G.726 codec peers?
> From:
> Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:
> Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:47:14 +0800
> To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Developers Mailing List
> <[email protected]>
> 
> To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Developers Mailing List
> <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> thomas schorpp wrote:
>> thomas schorpp wrote:
>>  
>>> http://www.callweaver.org/ticket/344
>>> 1.2RC Revision: 4582
>>>
>>> Silently failing calls with all peers still using payload type 2 for
>>> G.726 codec and log flooding with
>>> NOTICE[xxxxxxxxxx] rtp.c: Unknown RTP codec 2 received
>>> will occur without -DUSE_DEPRECATED_G726 compiler defined CW builds.
>>>
>>> Please discuss adding configure switch defaulting to YES for
>>> -DUSE_DEPRECATED_G726. Tested OK here.
>>> Any drawbacks?
>>>
>>> y
>>> tom
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> drawback #1: ekiga 2.0.11 sets up G.721 instead G.726 for payload type 2
>> if called.
>>   
> That is not a drawback. G.721 is the same as G.726. This is the very
> reason why the change is being asked for. Ekiga is broken, and follows
> an ancient non-standard Cisco practice.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Michel de Boer
www.twinklephone.com

_______________________________________________
Callweaver-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev

Reply via email to