[Asterisk-Dev] status of new jitterbuffer?

[Steve Kann]

On Apr 2, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Peter Svensson wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Steve Kann wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Richard Scobie wrote:
>>> Any more thoughts on PLC for xLAW systems with no translations, which
>>> I believe currently is non-functional?
>>
>> The only time this comes up, really, is if one leg of your call goes 
>> to
>> TDM (either chan_zap, or if any of the other TDM devices support 
>> xLaw).
>>    The simplest way to do this is to force the device into Signed 
>> Linear
>> mode, and force a translation to happen.  Otherwise, you need to
>> implement the PLC stuff in the channel drivers themselves.
>
> Is that the recommended way to handle digital zap channels as well? We
> could use the jitterbuffer on our PRI gateway. Normally we use alaw for
> the ip links as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by recommended, I didn't recommend either 
choice -- there's a simple way, which has a small performance penalty 
for every frame that goes through (i.e. they all will go from ulaw <-> 
slinear <-> ulaw, in most cases), and a more complicated way that leads 
to a bunch more code to write and debug, which has a much smaller 
performance penalty (just keep a copy of the last xlaw frame in a 
buffer) when frames aren't lost.