H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose?

Christian Groves epachg at EPA.ERICSSON.SE
Wed Apr 14 21:23:20 EDT 1999

G'Day Ami and Tom,

There has been some initial disucssion in the 3rd generation mobile
projects (ie.UMTS) regarding the usage of H.324 therefore I think its
too early to preclude H.324 from MEGACOP discussion. So I think
that it should definately be supported in the scope of MEGACOP.

Cheers, Christian

Ami Amir wrote:
> Tom,
> Without going into specific product plans, it is clear that for deployments
> that want to support both voice AND H.320 - deployment of "video only"
> gateways does not make any sense, and the same gateway needs to support
> both functions.
> So, if voice will opt for decomposition, it should find a way to
> accommodate the video/data side. BTW - H.324 "died" because there was no
> real application/network that supported it well. It seems to me that in the
> new networks (e.g. ADSL or Cable or wireless local loop) it might still be
> useful. Should we support it in Megacop?
> Ami
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Tom-PT Taylor [SMTP:taylor at nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent:   Friday, April 09, 1999 9:57 PM
> To:     ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject:        H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose?
> This is addressed to the experts of Study Group 16, but has impact on the
> priorities of work both for Megaco and for H.GCP.  The question, which I
> raised obliquely in a previous exchange on co-location of H.245 signalling
> with the Media Gateway function, is whether any vendor will actually create
> a decomposed H.320-to-H.323 Gateway.  If not, we can stop worrying about
> how
> to accommodate H.320 in the Media Gateway control protocol.
> Tom Taylor
> E-mail: taylor at nortelnetworks.com  (internally Tom-PT Taylor)
> Tel.: +1 613 736 0961     (ESN 396-1490)
> FAX: same number by prior arrangement (manual answer).

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list