Eugene Prokopiev wrote:
>> > My provider uses very strange softswitch which uses payload type = 97
>> > for dtmf transmission. I have patch to resolve this probles but it
>> > seems incompatible with ilbc. Is it possible rewrite it with ilbc
>> > support in mind and apply it?
>> >
>> > I can't create new ticket because after submitting I got "Page not found"
>> :(
>> >
>>
>> 97 is what the far end want to call RFC2833. 97 is what we want to call
>> iLBC. There is no conflict.
>>
>> The Hua Wei switches are quite popular, and various people have
>> interfaced with them. I don't think your problem hasn't been report before.
>>
>
> Google says nothing about this problem. Using [97] = {0,
> CW_RTP_HUAWEI_DTMF} instead of [97] = {1, CW_FORMAT_ILBC} works but
> looks like ugly hack. How this patch can looks like to work correctly
> with iLBC?
>
You can make iLBC work by removing the bit where you broke iLBC
operation. That relates to *our* numbering of packet types. You should
only be changing code related to *their* numbering of packet types.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Callweaver-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
