On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:34:24 -0500, Jim Van Meggelen wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Paul Fielding wrote: >>> Hmmm.... I could certainly see that being the issue. If it is the >>> issue, though, then I think it's something that needs to be >>> addressed. >>> >>> In my opinion, Digium needs to address it, as well as the whole >>> provisioning via cli thing. I know Asterisk itself is a CLI oriented >>> piece of software, but the more one can do do decrease configuration >>> timing and issues the better off one is. I think it would be a >>> benefit to allow the IAXy to be programmed via web interface. >>> >>> For that matter, from what I can tell via my own experimentation, it >>> appears that you cannot use DNS to define the asterisk server to it. >>> This is bad, since it means that if the IP of the asterisk server >>> changes, you need to directly reprovision *all* of your IAXy >>> devices.... >>> >>> For a new product, it has potential, hopefully these things will be >>> addressed.... >> >> The IAXy does not have the CPU, RAM, or Flash to be able to add any >> significant features. I think it has 4k or RAM and 4k of >> Flash. > >Well, that certainly limits it's useful future. A neat toy, with limited >market potential. > >I'd certainly like to hear about it's successor, then, because any kind >of IAX-based ATA is something that would seem to have a future with >Asterisk.
Do a google fo an AG-168 device based on the PA1688 chipset. it available now. BTW, these ATA units are cheaper than an IAXy here in Australia as well. . _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
