128Kbps channel on VOIP?

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by Scott, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. Scott

    Scott Guest

    I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    and then resynchronizing the two on the other end. Thanks for any
    help.
     
    Scott, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Scott <> wrote:
    > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.


    Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.

    How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
     
    Miguel Cruz, Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scott

    root Guest

    Miguel Cruz wrote:

    > Scott <> wrote:
    >> I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    >> Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    >> G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    >> regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    >> and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

    >
    > Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
    >


    I thought so. Otherwise, one could have attached a FAX machine to the VoIP
    device only for voice.

    > How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >
    > miguel


    I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.

    --
    root/administrator
     
    root, Oct 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Scott

    MM Guest

    Miguel Cruz wrote:
    > Scott <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    >>Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    >>G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    >>regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    >>and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

    >
    >
    > Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
    >
    > How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >
    > miguel


    Isn't that DIP for short..?
     
    MM, Oct 21, 2003
    #4
  5. Scott

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    MM <> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >> Scott <> wrote:
    >>> I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    >>> Is there a standard applicable to this effort?

    >>
    >> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

    >
    > Isn't that DIP for short..?


    Oops, my mistake.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
     
    Miguel Cruz, Oct 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Scott

    Neil Smith Guest

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:26:31 GMT, root
    <,administrator@localhost> wrote:

    >>
    >> Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.


    >
    >I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.
    >


    Isn't UDP potentially lossy as well ? Better stick to TCP for fax
    data or you might lose that important signature ! BTW do www.tpc.com
    still do email to fax services ? Might be worth a try for low volume
    fax data.

    >--
    >root/administrator


    ========================================================
    CaptionKit http://www.captionkit.com : Produce subtitled
    internet media, transcripts and searchable video. Supports
    Real Player, Quicktime and Windows Media Player.

    VideoChat with friends online, get Freshly Toasted every
    day at http://www.fresh-toast.net : NetMeeting solutions
    for a connected world.
     
    Neil Smith, Oct 21, 2003
    #6
  7. Scott

    root Guest

    Neil Smith wrote:

    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:26:31 GMT, root
    > <,administrator@localhost> wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>> Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.

    >
    >>
    >>I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.
    >>

    >
    > Isn't UDP potentially lossy as well ? Better stick to TCP for fax
    > data or you might lose that important signature ! BTW do www.tpc.com
    > still do email to fax services ? Might be worth a try for low volume
    > fax data.
    >


    Oops, my mistake, too.

    --
    root/administrator
     
    root, Oct 21, 2003
    #7
  8. Scott

    Scott Guest

    (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message news:<TnVkb.37061$>...
    > Scott <> wrote:
    > > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    > > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    > > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    > > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    > > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

    >
    > Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
    >
    > How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >
    > miguel


    Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The
    data to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just
    saying that somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

    Scott
     
    Scott, Oct 21, 2003
    #8
  9. Scott

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Scott <> wrote:
    > (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

    >
    > Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The data
    > to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
    > somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then reassembled...I
    > just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.


    VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure you
    can find a codec that wants 128K.

    It is entirely unclear to me what the real restriction is that you are
    facing. Why "must" you use VoIP? Without an answer to that question
    (basically, a description of your connectivity environment) nobody can help
    you much.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
     
    Miguel Cruz, Oct 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Scott

    MM Guest

    Neil Smith wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:26:31 GMT, root
    > <,administrator@localhost> wrote:
    >
    >>I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.

    >
    > Isn't UDP potentially lossy as well ? Better stick to TCP for fax
    > data or you might lose that important signature ! BTW do www.tpc.com
    > still do email to fax services ? Might be worth a try for low volume
    > fax data.


    UDP is not lossy. G.711, like the MP3 audio format, takes an audio
    stream and creates an approximation of that stream that requires less
    bandwidth to store or transmit. Once this process is done, it can't be
    undone. That is, there is no way of recreating the original audio stream.

    UDP does not alter the data passed to it by an application. It differs
    from TCP in that TCP sequences the data and requires acknowledgement of
    receipt of that data. If a piece of data is lost, the TCP protocol will
    detect this and request that the data be retransmitted, completely
    transparent to the application. The cost of doing this is larger
    packets due to overhead, plus more traffic due to the acknowledgements.
    UDP just ships out the data without sequencing or acknowledgements.
    It is up to the application to detect and retransmit data. If an
    application that uses UDP loses data, it's the fault of the application,
    not the tranport protocol.

    MM
     
    MM, Oct 22, 2003
    #10
  11. Scott

    MM Guest

    Miguel Cruz wrote:
    > MM <> wrote:
    >
    >>>How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

    >>
    >>Isn't that DIP for short..?

    >
    > Oops, my mistake.
    >
    > miguel


    It was supposed to be a joke!

    MM
     
    MM, Oct 22, 2003
    #11
  12. Scott

    NO SPAMMERS Guest

    Miguel Cruz wrote:

    > Scott <> wrote:
    >> (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?

    >>
    >> Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The data
    >> to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
    >> somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    >> reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

    >
    > VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
    > you can find a codec that wants 128K.
    >


    VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
    there is a P on VoIP?

    > It is entirely unclear to me what the real restriction is that you are
    > facing. Why "must" you use VoIP? Without an answer to that question
    > (basically, a description of your connectivity environment) nobody can
    > help you much.
    >
    > miguel


    --
    NO_SPAMMERS
     
    NO SPAMMERS, Oct 22, 2003
    #12
  13. "NO SPAMMERS" <> wrote in message
    news:BGjlb.602993$Oz4.610734@rwcrnsc54...
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    > > Scott <> wrote:
    > >> (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over

    IP)?
    > >>
    > >> Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The

    data
    > >> to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
    > >> somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    > >> reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

    > >
    > > VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
    > > you can find a codec that wants 128K.
    > >

    >
    > VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
    > there is a P on VoIP?


    Because it's Voice over (Internet Protocol), not (Voice over Internet)
    protocol.

    He's right, it's just a set of technologies.

    --
    Phil McKerracher
    www.mckerracher.org
     
    Phil McKerracher, Oct 22, 2003
    #13
  14. Scott

    MM Guest

    NO SPAMMERS wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Scott <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The data
    >>>to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just saying that
    >>>somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    >>>reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

    >>
    >>VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
    >>you can find a codec that wants 128K.
    >>

    >
    >
    > VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
    > there is a P on VoIP?
    >
    >
    >>It is entirely unclear to me what the real restriction is that you are
    >>facing. Why "must" you use VoIP? Without an answer to that question
    >>(basically, a description of your connectivity environment) nobody can
    >>help you much.
    >>
    >>miguel

    >
    >


    Speaking of DIPs...
     
    MM, Oct 22, 2003
    #14
  15. Scott

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    MM <> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >> MM <> wrote:
    >>>> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >>>
    >>> Isn't that DIP for short..?

    >>
    >> Oops, my mistake.

    >
    > It was supposed to be a joke!


    I know, I was just acknowledging that your joke was better than mine.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
     
    Miguel Cruz, Oct 22, 2003
    #15
  16. Scott

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    NO SPAMMERS <> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >> VoIP isn't a protocol, it's an open-ended set of technologies. I am sure
    >> you can find a codec that wants 128K.

    >
    > VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol. If VoIP is not a protocol, then why
    > there is a P on VoIP?


    It's Voice, over something called "Internet Protocol".

    This works the same way that a "Coney Island hot dog" is not a dog.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
     
    Miguel Cruz, Oct 22, 2003
    #16
  17. Scott

    Neil Smith Guest

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:12:25 GMT, (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    Or the same way George Bush is not - - - oh, wait, damn ....
    Well I can dream

    LOL

    >It's Voice, over something called "Internet Protocol".
    >
    >This works the same way that a "Coney Island hot dog" is not a dog.
    >
    >miguel
    >--
    >Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu


    ========================================================
    CaptionKit http://www.captionkit.com : Produce subtitled
    internet media, transcripts and searchable video. Supports
    Real Player, Quicktime and Windows Media Player.

    VideoChat with friends online, get Freshly Toasted every
    day at http://www.fresh-toast.net : NetMeeting solutions
    for a connected world.
     
    Neil Smith, Oct 22, 2003
    #17
  18. Scott

    shope Guest

    "Scott" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message

    news:<TnVkb.37061$>...
    > > Scott <> wrote:
    > > > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    > > > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    > > > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    > > > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    > > > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

    > >
    > > Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
    > >
    > > How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    > >
    > > miguel

    >
    > Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The
    > data to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just
    > saying that somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    > reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.


    i was in a cisco presentation when they mentioned that their phones support
    256 Kbps for better than G.711 audio.

    FWIW there are lots of standards in the broadcast industry for audio codecs
    at better quality levels - some of it gets used for audio feeds over ISDN
    for football reports and so on.

    >
    > Scott

    --
    Regards

    Stephen Hope - remove xx from email to reply
     
    shope, Oct 22, 2003
    #18
  19. Scott

    Hank Karl Guest

    On 21 Oct 2003 08:59:30 -0700, (Scott) wrote:

    > (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message news:<TnVkb.37061$>...
    >> Scott <> wrote:
    >> > I am trying to transport 128Kbps data over VOIP. Is this possible?
    >> > Is there a standard applicable to this effort? I realize that the
    >> > G.711 rate is 64kbps, so it would be just like transporting two
    >> > regular G.711 channels. The problem would be splitting up the 128Kbps
    >> > and then resynchronizing the two on the other end.

    >>
    >> Isn't G.711 lossy? You get less data back out than you put in.
    >>
    >> How about trying the revolutionary new technology: DoIP (Data over IP)?
    >>
    >> miguel

    >
    >Thanks, but I have no choice...The protocol I must use is VOIP. The
    >data to transport is actually voice, but at 128Kbps. I was just
    >saying that somehow this stream must be split into two 64kbps and then
    >reassembled...I just wondered if VOIP has support for 128Kbps audio.

    is that H.323, SIP, MGCP/Megaco, or what?

    G.722 compresses 7K audio to 64K (or 56K or 48K). Other codecs will
    compress this 7K to 16K. what type of codec uses 128K?

    You can probably select your codec, most of the VoIP signaling
    protocols allow you to do so.
    >
    >Scott
     
    Hank Karl, Oct 22, 2003
    #19
  20. Scott

    Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:24:31 GMT, MM <> wrote:

    >Neil Smith wrote:
    >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:26:31 GMT, root
    >> <,administrator@localhost> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I thought that's what UDP is all about -- to transfer data over IP.

    >>
    >> Isn't UDP potentially lossy as well ? Better stick to TCP for fax
    >> data or you might lose that important signature ! BTW do www.tpc.com
    >> still do email to fax services ? Might be worth a try for low volume
    >> fax data.

    >
    >UDP is not lossy. G.711, like the MP3 audio format, takes an audio
    >stream and creates an approximation of that stream that requires less
    >bandwidth to store or transmit. Once this process is done, it can't be
    >undone. That is, there is no way of recreating the original audio stream.


    Note quite like MP3, where it uses a lossy compression method. The
    G.711 codec doesn't compress or alter the 'digitized' data. The loss
    actually occurs when you sample the analog data stream (8bit, 8kHz
    typically for voice).


    >UDP does not alter the data passed to it by an application. It differs
    >from TCP in that TCP sequences the data and requires acknowledgement of
    >receipt of that data. If a piece of data is lost, the TCP protocol will
    >detect this and request that the data be retransmitted, completely
    >transparent to the application. The cost of doing this is larger
    >packets due to overhead, plus more traffic due to the acknowledgements.
    > UDP just ships out the data without sequencing or acknowledgements.
    >It is up to the application to detect and retransmit data. If an
    >application that uses UDP loses data, it's the fault of the application,
    >not the tranport protocol.


    Also, it's kinda pointless to use TCP for realtime data because if a
    packet isn't delivered on time, you can't use it. The Cisco fax relay
    protocol still doesn't use TCP, but rather sends the same packets
    twice to provide redundancy.

    -Chris
     
    , Oct 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bangla Deszcz

    voip - splitting ISDN channel

    Bangla Deszcz, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,348
    Bangla Deszcz
    Jul 13, 2003
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    536
    kaydigi
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. VanguardLH

    Re: Dual channel or triple channel?

    VanguardLH, Jun 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,253
    VanguardLH
    Jun 6, 2010
  4. Tony

    Re: Dual channel or triple channel?

    Tony, Jun 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    642
  5. Zeke

    Re: Dual channel or triple channel?

    Zeke, Jun 7, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    538
Loading...

Share This Page