Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 13:22 -0700, Richard Lyman wrote:
Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:06 -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a bit more descriptive
than a breakout box.
I
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a bit more descriptive
than a breakout box.
I paid $108 which seems steep, but telephony stuff always does :)
http://www.phonegeeks.com/noname1.html
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Geoff Nordli wrote:
[EMAIL
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:06 -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a bit more descriptive
than a breakout box.
I paid $108 which seems steep, but telephony stuff always does :)
Mike Sandman has them for about half of that, and he also have a 50 pair
one as well.
http://www.sandman.com/pdf/Page50.pdf
Harry
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:06, Steve Edwards wrote:
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a
Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:06 -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a bit more descriptive
than a breakout box.
I paid $108 which seems steep, but telephony stuff always does :)
Mike Sandman has them for about half of that, and he also have a 50 pair
one as well.
http://www.sandman.com/pdf/Page50.pdf
Oh my god, we used to pay about $25 for those. Maybe $30. Wholesale, in
quantity, of course, AT125-SM. I am amazed what these things get resold
for in the retail
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 13:22 -0700, Richard Lyman wrote:
Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:06 -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
How much does the break out box cost?
They call it a mini patch panel which sounds a bit more descriptive
than a breakout box.
I paid $108
-Commercial Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Generic X100P's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a breakout box like a BIX?
I don't know, what's a BIX? Googling a bit it looks like a
BIX may be
related to or the same as a 66 punchdown block?
The item I referred to as a breakout
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:16:14 -0500, Steven Critchfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 cards is the highest number recommended.
That's not entirely correct.
It should be
2 cards is the higher number recommended ***on x86 hardware***
If you use a Mac running LinuxPPC, you can use as many cards as
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 17:01 +0900, Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:16:14 -0500, Steven Critchfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 cards is the highest number recommended.
That's not entirely correct.
It should be
2 cards is the higher number recommended
Steven Critchfield wrote:
Funny since there is only 4 real IRQ lines on a PCI bus. They are A, B,
C, and D. If you have more than 4 slots on a PCI bus, then you are most
definately reusing a real IRQ wire.
That is a drastic oversimplification; each PCI slot has only four IRQ
lines, but there is
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Steven Critchfield wrote:
Funny since there is only 4 real IRQ lines on a PCI bus. They are A, B,
C, and D. If you have more than 4 slots on a PCI bus, then you are most
definately reusing a real IRQ wire.
As for if PPC could handle it, I haven't seen any drivers.
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 17:44 +0200, Peter Svensson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Steven Critchfield wrote:
Funny since there is only 4 real IRQ lines on a PCI bus. They are A, B,
C, and D. If you have more than 4 slots on a PCI bus, then you are most
definately reusing a real IRQ wire.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 17:44 +0200, Peter Svensson wrote:
This is not correct. Each pci slot has four physical interrupt lines, A-D.
The implementation is free to supply four separate interrupt lines to each
card, i.e. the interupt lines are
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:41:29 -0700, Erik Espinoza
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've noticed that all documentation online talks about how to
configure a single x100p (or generic) in /etc/zaptel.conf and
/etc/asterisk/zapata.conf. snip
My question is, for using two x100p's are there any changes
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 13:41 -0700, Erik Espinoza wrote:
Alright, I'd like to start out by saying that this is just a proof of
concept. The final configuration will include the purchase of a couple
of TDM400P's so all flames for using cheap Winmodems please divert
yourselves to /dev/null and
Sorry, I hit reply instead of reply all.
Erik
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:03:51 -0500, Steven Critchfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 14:07 -0700, Erik Espinoza wrote:
Since every zapata card generates 1k interupts per second and needs to
be on it's own interupt, your
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 14:49 -0700, Erik Espinoza wrote:
Sorry, I hit reply instead of reply all.
If reply all actually responds to the reply-to header and reply doesn't,
your MUA is broken.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:03:51 -0500, Steven Critchfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon,
If reply all actually responds to the reply-to header and reply doesn't,
your MUA is broken.
There is no reply-to header being added in from the asterisk-users
mailing list, I double checked this by looking through other peoples
posts. The MUA works fine with mailing lists that actually add the
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Steven Critchfield wrote:
But as I mentioned, it won't
be completely representative of your suggested final deployment and may
cause you unforeseen trouble. If you are being serious about testing for
real deployments, you should go ahead and buy final hardware. If you are
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Erik Espinoza wrote:
Just want to test with real phone lines to ensure that they
work with our existing pbx before deploying with 8 lines using the
tdm400p's
Consider using a t100p and a channel bank. Here's the breakdown:
TDM T1
I'm not looking to deploy a new pbx, I'm just looking to set up a
system that will call whoever is on-call that night based on a
schedule. This system would need to interact with our existing pbx,
and I think the tdm is the better approach.
Thanks for the insights, however. They are always
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 17:23 -0700, Erik Espinoza wrote:
If reply all actually responds to the reply-to header and reply doesn't,
your MUA is broken.
There is no reply-to header being added in from the asterisk-users
mailing list, I double checked this by looking through other peoples
Steve -
When you recommend a channel bank to eliminate echo, are you assuming use
of a T-1 with the channel bank? I'm curious because I bought a used CAC
ADIT600 with 24 FXO lines and 8 FXS. I'm terminating my 8 POTs lines into
8 of the FXO lines on the ADIT600 as I don't have a T-1. The
I chose a breakout box for my on-the-road demo kit. You may
already have a
66 block or a 110 block wired up.
Is a breakout box like a BIX? If not can you tell me what it is?
Thanks,
Geoff
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Ken Alker wrote:
When you recommend a channel bank to eliminate echo, are you assuming use of
a T-1 with the channel bank?
Yes.
[Yes, that was flippant, but my inexperience doesn't allow me to give you
a difinitive answer :) My opinion that a channel bank would not have an
Is a breakout box like a BIX?
I don't know, what's a BIX? Googling a bit it looks like a BIX may be
related to or the same as a 66 punchdown block?
The item I referred to as a breakout box is a plastic box with an AMP50
connector on the side and a 5x5 array of rj11's on the top.
On Mon, 11 Oct
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a breakout box like a BIX?
I don't know, what's a BIX? Googling a bit it looks like a BIX may be
related to or the same as a 66 punchdown block?
The item I referred to as a breakout box is a plastic box
with an AMP50
connector on the side and a 5x5 array of
28 matches
Mail list logo
