From: Teck PhrEAk!! (phreakinphunk@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 12:23:31 GMT-3
hi scot,
yes u have got it right.....except for the comfort noice part......since u
configure it on the voice port...its local to that port....hmm......the
configuration is local and only pertaining to that port.....no info is sent
across the link.....its a local config....i maynot be explaining it
right.....but hope u get it ;-)
yes there is a default value for music-threshold......dont remember....but
if u can get yr hands on "Integrating Voice and Data" Cisco Press .....it
will help u a lot to clear up yr concepts....chapter 17 and 18 is what u
need to go thru.
ppl pitch in if i am wrong.......
cheers
sumit.
>From: "Scott M. Livingston" <scottl@sprinthosting.net>
>Reply-To: "Scott M. Livingston" <scottl@sprinthosting.net>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: VOICE Feature Questions
>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:06:43 -0600
>
>Anyone have any deep dark secrets on when and how best to use the
>following features? I don't have much practical experience in this area
>and no VIC's at the house. Basically, I am concerned with gotchya's
>related to these features.
>
>VAD
>COMFORT-NOISE
>MUSIC-THRESHOLD
>
>I understand the following:
>
>VAD: Configured on dial-peer only. On by default. When enabled it stops
>the sending of packets during silence. VAD should be enabled on low BW
>connections, but disabled for high BW links.
>
>COMFORT-NOISE: Configured on voice ports only. On by default. When
>enabled it is used to send "subtle" background noise during the silent
>periods.
>
>MUSIC-THRESHOLD: Configured on voice ports only. Not on by default???
>
>
>Question: VAD and COMFORT-NOISE seem to contradict one another. Or is it
>the fact that COMFORT-NOISE will send far LESS background noise compared
>to having VAD disabled? COMFORT-NOISE is just sending enough background
>noise to keep the listener on the other end happy in that they know
>someone is still on the line even if they stop speaking.???
>
>Thank You,
>scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 13:35:45 GMT-3