FW: Where H.245 goes - MG or MGC (Skran's comments)

Rex Coldren coldrenr at AGCS.COM
Wed Mar 10 10:57:06 EST 1999

Just to get this argument back on track...

Are we going to allow for the option of H.245 channels being opened
on the MG?

David R. Oran wrote:

> Dale's arguments are impeccable if one believes that MGCs are
> gatekeepers, which they're not. MGCs and MGs are a single H.323
> endpoint, ripped apart and put in different boxes. The Megaco protocol
> glues the boxes together. If you put all of H.323 in the MG then you
> have no need of an MGC in the first place. QED.
> I don't think anyone proposes declaring that monolithic H.323 endpoints
> (i.e. MGC+MG+SG) must be split up. Heavens, many of us sell hundreds of
> these every day and they work just fine, thank you.
> So, I think I agree with Tom that this response is interesting but not
> terribly relevant to the engineering tradeoffs in marrying Megaco to
> H.323.

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list