Matthew Webster wrote: > > Hi Priscilla, > > thanks for the help. I have found the chart you referred to and > made several calculations - it appears that the bandwidth > almost triples when you don't compress the IP, UDP and RTP > headers.
Yes. The bandwidth requirement almost triples. (I didn't finish the arithmetic before I hit the Post button on my previous message.) Windows NetMeeting and other such applications might compress the IP/UDP/RTP headers. It's an RFC that's been out for a time (RFC 2508). I don't know for sure if they do, though. It might not be the right approach anyway. I think compressed IP/UDP/RTP is usually implemented at the end points of slow links and isn't meant to be used end-to-end by applications. _______________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com > > Here we're pretty certain that a typical dial up modem (either > 33.6 or 56kbps) have enough upstream bandwidth to handle these > codecs. However, we could greatly decrease our bandwidth > requirements if we compress the IP, UDP and RTP headers (saving > money and bandwidth). However we're not sure if winsock or > whatever protocol stack unencapsulation tool on a Microsoft O/S > will be able to uncompress the IP, UDP and RTP headers. We're > going to try to set up an experiment here as well as check out > the Microsoft and Cisco websites, but if you know the answer, > then that would be great. > > cheers, > Matthew. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56967&t=56942 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
