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

Paul Long Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM
Wed Apr 14 22:45:29 EDT 1999

I agree. H.324 does not have the cache and is not experiencing the same
intense interest of H.323, but it still lives, and the number of vendors is
stable. Plus, across the PSTN, it blows the doors off H.323. :-)

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Christian Groves [SMTP:epachg at EPA.ERICSSON.SE]
        Sent:   Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:23 PM
        To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
        Subject:        Re: H.320 to H.323 Gateways: Will They Decompose?

        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
        > that want to support both voice AND H.320 - deployment of "video
        > gateways does not make any sense, and the same gateway needs to
        > 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
        > with the Media Gateway function, is whether any vendor will actually
        > a decomposed H.320-to-H.323 Gateway.  If not, we can stop worrying
        > 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