On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Karl Fife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:38:17 -0500, "James Sneeringer" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:45 AM, C F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > No, in the beginning you asked because you don't have the experience >> > so folks like myself that do have the experience answered. It might >> > work for you, no one knows and you THINK it will work, it's a hit and >> > miss, stability is huge issue, thats where experience comes in. If you >> > want something that I or the other people here just think works, then >> > just get an ATA. If you want something we have experienced and know >> > that it works, then get a channel bank. > > I'd like to draw on your experience. At one point you mentioned that > the > fax stability goes from perfect to "anybody's guess" when the call > leaves the PRI card. I think I understand the underlying architecture > well enough to know why this is the case. Here's the question: > > In an installation where there are only Analog Telco drops, can > pri/channel bank reliability be achieved on analog cards by keeping fax > traffic *within* a single Digium TDM card *because* of the fact that > card would not be subject to the limitations of the PCI/PCX interface > bus and/or underlying OS? For example 4 analog fax lines into (and out > of) a single TDM800--4 telco lines to 4 FXO, 4 fax machines from 4 FXS). > > Do you have any practical or theoretical knowledge as to whether similar > reliability to the PRI/Channel-bank setup can be achieved PROVIDED that > traffic is never allowed to leave the internals of the card. Depending > on how ZAP services the card, there may be exactly ZERO difference > between the aforementioned setup and one involving multiple SEPARATE > cards. If traffic stays within the card, where (if anywhere) does the > process becomes compromised?
I do this with a TDM2400 card and it works fine, but I only have it in one location like that, as I don't like it. I don't like the TDM2400 card (or any other analog 2 wire zap cards), and have since started using only channel banks, and I don't like using fax machines thru asterisk if the setup is only POTS. If a customer is running only POTS then they have a line dedicated as a fax line, in which case there is usually no point in having the fax line connected to the PBX. However, if the customer has a PRI then they are in most cases using a DID coming in over the PRI for faxing, in which case terminating that fax connection out of Asterisk on an FXS port is important. I have tried with Zap FXS cards (in a separate PCI slot than the PRI card) and faxing was not stable enough. The only time I was able to predict the stability of faxing was when using a multi port T1 Zap card where one is connected to a channel bank. > > Certainly it would be trivial to design a card that could handle fax > pass-through, so the logical conclusion seems to be that NOT having done > so was done to achieve a GREATER good in a mutually exclusive design > trade-off. I'm sure that I (and others) would be very interested to > gain a better understanding of this if you (or anyone) can speak > intelligently to it. That greater good might have been that faxing is a technology of the past :) > > Thanks > > -Karl > > > _______________________________________________ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona > Register Now: http://www.astricon.net > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
