While it will probably be handled when you move out of outlook, please wrap your lines at a reasonable length.
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 15:30 -0500, Olson, Dana wrote: > Actually, I do care, and I did search Google (albeit quickly) and I > did look on the hardware list as well as the VoIP wiki. Maybe one of > the cards listed there does what I need, but it wasn't listed like the > QuickNet cards are. I thought perhaps the feature list on the site > would be consistent, but apparently not. The fact that the hardware > list on the Asterisk site does not include the Sangoma cards shows > that it's not a complete list of supported hardware. As of right now, I don't think the sangoma card supports any codec conversions and asterisk support at the same time. I say this as it supports the zaptel api and therefore should work similarly as the TE cards from Digium as far as asterisk is concerned. Also I don't see that the Wanpipe hardware supports codec translations either. I may be wrong on that though. > I don't understand what was so bad about my question. I thought it was > direct and to the point, but apparently I left a lot of guesswork? A > few people managed to actually answer my question - how did they do > it? It wasn't so much that your question was bad, but it didn't show that you had the proper understanding of the question. If you had stated which sites/URLs you had searched through to come to the conclusion that there might be a reason the list would be more authoritative that those URLs, it would have shown effort and therefore reason to be respected. You will find that even in supposedly rough groups, effort is respected. Few like freeloaders. Your question seemed like it was only about you having others do your work. The extra couple of lines you would have typed to show a bit of your previous effort would have sufficed to eliminate that appearance. > I'm sorry about the disclaimer, it is automatically added to any email > that goes outside of our Exchange server. I'll get a new email account > to use, as suggested by Steven. I won't email from this account again > after this. I agree that it's annoying, but I fail to see how this > makes me "lazy." I'm not sure the disclaimer itself shows anything other than a stupid policy by your employer. At some point your employer should actually seek legal advice as to whether or not the disclaimer does any good at all. I could disagree with it and therefore not be bound by it. As the majority of the world isn't in any form of business agreements with your employer, there isn't much you could do to compel others to abide by it. > And to Timothy, who just wrote back to my original question, the > reason I don't want the TE cards is that the processing is done on the > system CPU and not on the card itself. I already have one of the TE > cards though, and will make due if it comes to that. Right now, I don't think there is any support for other codecs on TDM cards. There is however discussions about using GPUs for codecs though. When it comes down to it, reasonable hardware should handle decent amounts of codec translations. If you are trying to stuff more than the suggested amount of TE hardware in a box and do codec translation, then you need to rethink the cost of failure. If you are dependant on 12 T1s (value pulled from thin air, not necessarily related), You should see about spitting it out over 3 boxes so at most you only lose 4 T1s at a time. For most companies that rely on the phones, losing 1/3rd of the production is pretty expensive, losing all of production is not tolerable. Any card that does the codec translation for you will probably make you more likely to consolidate too many interfaces into one machine. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ 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
