Test message

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Mon Sep 29 02:24:13 EDT 2003


> I thought it would happen from the conversion among us.
> I do not understand well. One of my understanding is that the version 1
> is not aware of our syntax issue and it could accept any Setup and return
> Connect irrespective of the version. Am I right?

That is correct.  That's the problem we are looking at.

> Why are there issues in Fast Connect only?

With regular H.245 capability exchange and the use of OLCs, both sides will
know the actual capabilities.  Version 2 devices should then only send an
OLC with a version that it knows the remote side can accept.

We potentially have this same problem with SIP and other SDP-based systems.
They must change the version number in the "answer" to an "offer".

> The 2002 ASN.1 syntax is for t30-data.
> Before V.21 signal starts, i.e. during CNG and CED exchange,
> I do not believe there are issues.
> If we use Fast Connect and V.21 signals are exchanged during Fast Connect,
> it would be a problem. Is this one of the problems?

The problem has to do with sending a Fast Connect proposal (channel
proposal) for T.38v2 (2002 syntax) to a version 0 device (1998) syntax and
that device accepting the proposal and, subsequently, sending 2002-encoded
IFP packets.  The version 0 device cannot decode the IFP packets.

In short, there is a potential for sending the wrong ASN.1 PER encoded


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list