Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

ipipgw

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

svoll.voip at gmail

Jun 17, 2008, 3:52 PM

Post #1 of 13 (1369 views)
Permalink

ipipgw

How do you rate a router as an IPIPGW?

2801 does 50 connections? and a 2851 does 1000? is there something out
there that says?

Thanks

Scott

PS. is the feature set SP services?

Marcin_Nowacki at sevenet

Nov 22, 2009, 12:16 PM

Post #2 of 13 (1086 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

One is enough.

Greetings
Marcin

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ali El Moussaoui
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:26 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] IPIPGW

Hello Group,

I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).

Regards,
Ali

________________________________
S?d Rejonowy Gda?sk - P??noc w Gda?sku, VII Wydzia? Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru S?dowego KRS: 0000308826, NIP: 583-22-02-053 Kapita? zak?adowy: 588.000,00
Zawarto?? tej wiadomo?ci zawiera informacje zastrze?one, stanowi?ce tajemnic? firmy SEVENET S.A. Nieuprawnione wykorzystanie tych informacji do w?asnych cel?w lub ich ujawnianie osobom trzecim jest zabronione. W przypadku omy?kowego otrzymania tej wiadomo?ci prosimy o jej trwa?e skasowanie oraz powiadomienie o tym fakcie nadawcy informacji.
This e-mail content contains confidential information, and is the property of SEVENET S.A. Any illegal use of this information for personal purposes or any disclosure to other persons or entities is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message please delete this e-mail and inform the sender about it.

Andris.Zarins at lattelecom

Nov 22, 2009, 12:30 PM

Post #3 of 13 (1088 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

Cisco DSP Calculator at:

http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/DSP/cisco_prodsel.pl

.. is Your friend.

A

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ali El
Moussaoui
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:26 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] IPIPGW

Hello Group,

I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full
E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will
be using G729 (medium complexity).

Regards,

Ali

mh at markholloway

Nov 22, 2009, 12:37 PM

Post #4 of 13 (1091 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.

On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:

> Hello Group,
>
> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).
>
>
> Regards,
> Ali
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

matthnick at gmail

Nov 22, 2009, 1:22 PM

Post #5 of 13 (1087 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
conferencing? Don't need DSPs.

-nick

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. �PVDM2-32 will handle 16. �PVDM2-16 will handle 8. �You get the idea.
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
>> Hello Group,
>>
>> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ali
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

mousawi.ali at gmail

Nov 22, 2009, 1:45 PM

Post #6 of 13 (1085 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for since
i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:

> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
> at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
> assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
> conferencing? Don't need DSPs.
>
> -nick
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
> wrote:
> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will
> handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Group,
> >>
> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
> for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1.
> My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using
> G729 (medium complexity).
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ali
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>

mh at markholloway

Nov 22, 2009, 4:41 PM

Post #7 of 13 (1071 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP upstream. If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then you don't need a PVDM module.

On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:

> thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:
> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
> at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
> assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
> conferencing? Don't need DSPs.
>
> -nick
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Group,
> >>
> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ali
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>

mousawi.ali at gmail

Nov 25, 2009, 2:02 AM

Post #8 of 13 (1015 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is
that true?
Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:

> It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP
> upstream. If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then
> you don't need a PVDM module.
>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
> thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for
> since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>
>> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
>> at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
>> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
>> assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
>> conferencing? Don't need DSPs.
>>
>> -nick
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
>> wrote:
>> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will
>> handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello Group,
>> >>
>> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
>> for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1.
>> My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using
>> G729 (medium complexity).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ali
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cisco-voip mailing list
>> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>>
>
>
>

matthnick at gmail

Nov 25, 2009, 7:06 AM

Post #9 of 13 (1005 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

You can, but you shouldn't. It's not an enforced license, but it's
still an 'honor system' license. Additionally, there are some
features in the IPIPGW image that enable specific CUBE features.

-nick

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Ali El Moussaoui <mousawi.ali [at] gmail> wrote:
> I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is
> that true?
> Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
>>
>> It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP
>> upstream. �If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then
>> you don't need a PVDM module.
>> On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>>
>> thanks for your answers I�think Nicks answer is the one am looking for
>> since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
>>> at all for an IPIPGW. �Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
>>> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
>>> assuming is correct here. �No voice termination, transcoding, or
>>> conferencing? �Don't need DSPs.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
>>> wrote:
>>> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. �PVDM2-32 will
>>> > handle 16. �PVDM2-16 will handle 8. �You get the idea.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello Group,
>>> >>
>>> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
>>> >> for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1.
>>> >> My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using
>>> >> G729 (medium complexity).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Ali
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

mh at markholloway

Nov 25, 2009, 8:14 AM

Post #10 of 13 (1009 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

Cisco will start enforcing CUBE licensing in the newer 2900/3900 routers and IOS 15.

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:

> I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is that true?
> Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP upstream. If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then you don't need a PVDM module.
>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
>> thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:
>> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
>> at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
>> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
>> assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
>> conferencing? Don't need DSPs.
>>
>> -nick
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
>> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello Group,
>> >>
>> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ali
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cisco-voip mailing list
>> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>>
>
>

voicenoob at gmail

Nov 25, 2009, 8:35 AM

Post #11 of 13 (1005 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

CUBE is not in IPVOICE image. If you are going to use it buy it.

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mark Holloway
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:15 AM
To: Ali El Moussaoui
Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IPIPGW

Cisco will start enforcing CUBE licensing in the newer 2900/3900 routers and
IOS 15.

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:

I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is
that true?

Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:

It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP
upstream. If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then
you don't need a PVDM module.

On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:

thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for since
i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:

More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
conferencing? Don't need DSPs.

-nick

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will
handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
>> Hello Group,
>>
>> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1.
My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using
G729 (medium complexity).
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ali
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

mh at markholloway

Nov 25, 2009, 9:07 AM

Post #12 of 13 (1016 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

Side note. With IOS 15 "Cube Lite" is part of ipvoice for the 2400 IAD series.

On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:35 AM, VoiceNoob wrote:

> CUBE is not in IPVOICE image. If you are going to use it buy it.
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mark Holloway
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:15 AM
> To: Ali El Moussaoui
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] IPIPGW
>
> Cisco will start enforcing CUBE licensing in the newer 2900/3900 routers and IOS 15.
>
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
>
> I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is that true?
> Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP upstream. If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then you don't need a PVDM module.
>
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
>
> thanks for your answers I think Nicks answer is the one am looking for since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:
> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
> at all for an IPIPGW. Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
> assuming is correct here. No voice termination, transcoding, or
> conferencing? Don't need DSPs.
>
> -nick
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. PVDM2-32 will handle 16. PVDM2-16 will handle 8. You get the idea.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Group,
> >>
> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1. My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using G729 (medium complexity).
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ali
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>
>
>
>

matthnick at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 11:44 AM

Post #13 of 13 (977 views)
Permalink

Re: IPIPGW [In reply to]

Checked on this regarding license enforcement - from the information I
have this isn't true. There is a roadmap for enforcement, but it
isn't starting at 15.0 or on the G2 boxes.

-nick

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
> Cisco will start enforcing CUBE licensing in the newer 2900/3900 routers and
> IOS 15.
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>
> I was told that i need a feature license to do the CUBE (IPIPGW) setup is
> that true?
> Cant i load a an IPVOICE image and just use the feature?
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:
>>
>> It sounded like you were connecting an E1 to a TDM device and trunking IP
>> upstream. �If you're running like-for-like codecs and you're 100% IP then
>> you don't need a PVDM module.
>> On Nov 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>>
>> thanks for your answers I�think Nicks answer is the one am looking for
>> since i am doing H323-H323 no need for DSPs.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> More importantly - if you're not transcoding, you don't need the PVDM
>>> at all for an IPIPGW. �Be sure that we're talking about a SIP-SIP,
>>> SIP-H323, or H323-H323 connection when you say IPIPGW, which I'm
>>> assuming is correct here. �No voice termination, transcoding, or
>>> conferencing? �Don't need DSPs.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
>>> wrote:
>>> > PVDM2-64 will handle 32 G729 medium complexity calls. �PVDM2-32 will
>>> > handle 16. �PVDM2-16 will handle 8. �You get the idea.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 22, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Ali El Moussaoui wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello Group,
>>> >>
>>> >> I am a silent watcher and this is my first post. I am planning a setup
>>> >> for an IPIPGW. The requirements state that the gteway must handle a full E1.
>>> >> My question is: how many PVDM2-64 I need? 1 or 2? note that i will be using
>>> >> G729 (medium complexity).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Ali
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads