On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Troy Telford <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-02-29 15:25:49 +0000, Alejandro Imass said: >> >> We use SIP and IAX interchangeably, but had less hassle with IAX. The >> topic of the discussion on this thread was that SIP is so awesome and >> that IAX is a peice of crap. > > > The original question (mine) was that my sound quality when using IAX was > bad; with SIP the sound quality was great. Critically, I mentioned that I > wanted to use IAX; I even said I was willing to do some "self torture" to > get IAX working properly. >
Yeah, I wasn't referring particularly to the original post, just the way the thread turned against IAX like if it's not a viable solution and my point all along has been that for *us* IAX2 endpoints have worked better and easier to configure than SIP ones. Then it turned into a pissing contest, like you say, it happens in every list with the topic this or that. Again, as I pointed out to Steve above, and after reading all of your responses, our SIP/NAT woes seem obviously ignorance on our part, but that doesn't shadow the fact that IAX2 is working great for us with el-cheapo endpoints like Atcom's AG-188N and I would wish that many more manufacturers supported IAX2. We are happy with IAX and honestly never even had the need/curiosity to deal with the many SIP/NAT problems where sometimes it works great, and other times is a real pain in the ass that takes huge amounts of support to fix, and unhappy customers. On the other hand, IAX took some engineering efforts at first, but the support issues are practically non-existent. -- Alejandro Imass -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
