Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Steve Totaro wrote: I understand you are a developer and you want IAX2 to be great. That is your job, but the fact is that it is not and has caused audio and security problems for YEARS in EVERY release. It should bug you and everyone at Digium that waves the IAX2 flag. Can you elaborate on these audio and security problems Steve? Looking at the two protocol specs I cannot see a basis for your claim. IAX doesn't embed the local IP address in the packet data but that's surely no substantive security. It does separate data and signaling at the application-level, but again, that's no basis for such a claim. Protocols must be looked at separately from their implementations. From the various responses it appears that Asterisk 1.4's implementation of IAX has flaws. These do not necessarily reflect on the protocol. OTOH, there are a lot of engineers with SIP skill and experience who, naturally, are concerned with their investment in time, education, and experience. While this may or may not apply to Sonicwall engineering, it's also true that any streaming protocol will be better handled by devices that process packets in ASICs (high-end firewalls) rather than CPUs (PCs and low-end firewalls). FWIW (2 data points) I get uniformly better service from our IAX trunk provider than our SIP trunk provider. No idea whether that's protocol, implementation (1.4 on my side), or provider-related though I suspect the later. Roger Marquis ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Roger Marquis wrote: Steve Totaro wrote: I understand you are a developer and you want IAX2 to be great. That is your job, but the fact is that it is not and has caused audio and security problems for YEARS in EVERY release. It should bug you and everyone at Digium that waves the IAX2 flag. Can you elaborate on these audio and security problems Steve? Looking at the two protocol specs I cannot see a basis for your claim. IAX doesn't embed the local IP address in the packet data but that's surely no substantive security. It does separate data and signaling at the application-level, but again, that's no basis for such a claim. Protocols must be looked at separately from their implementations. From the various responses it appears that Asterisk 1.4's implementation of IAX has flaws. These do not necessarily reflect on the protocol. OTOH, there are a lot of engineers with SIP skill and experience who, naturally, are concerned with their investment in time, education, and experience. While this may or may not apply to Sonicwall engineering, it's also true that any streaming protocol will be better handled by devices that process packets in ASICs (high-end firewalls) rather than CPUs (PCs and low-end firewalls). This sounds like a bunch of gobbledegook spewed out by those very high end firewall vendors. Call it what you want but anything that processes packets in any way and makes a decision on what to do is by definition a CPU. And a general purpose CPU is not exactly poor at the job. If you look at utilization levels and latency on a typical CPU you would have thrown away already as a server, its barely even noticable utilization running a complex set of rules on a high volume data stream. FWIW (2 data points) I get uniformly better service from our IAX trunk provider than our SIP trunk provider. No idea whether that's protocol, implementation (1.4 on my side), or provider-related though I suspect the later. Roger Marquis ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- 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 -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Jon Pounder wrote: This sounds like a bunch of gobbledegook spewed out by those very high end firewall vendors. Call it what you want but anything that processes packets in any way and makes a decision on what to do is by definition a CPU. You won't find much support for that opinion in network engineering circles. The processing advantage of ASICs is easily measured and widely documented. ASICs are particularly critical to latency-sensitive protocols and those using small packet sizes with correspondingly high packet counts. According to Praveen Kumar (Founder/CEO of Packet Island) the ASIC differential is even more noticeable with interactive streaming video than streaming audio. Roger Marquis ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com writes: ASICs are particularly critical to latency-sensitive protocols and those using small packet sizes with correspondingly high packet counts. According to Praveen Kumar (Founder/CEO of Packet Island) the ASIC differential is even more noticeable with interactive streaming video than streaming audio. However, there is nothing that makes IAX more difficult than RTP. For both, you just have to use the standard UDP forwarding path without doing inspection. ASIC's won't care either way. /Benny ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with IAX going through my Sonicwall devices. I've had nothing but issues with sonicwalls on both the IAX2 and SIP side of things. At this point I simply refuse to work with customers who have problems with their network if they are fronting it with a sonicwall. It's a waste of the customers time and money, and seems to be an insurmountable obstacle. So I'm not surprised replacing it fixed your issue :) -- Leif Madsen. http://www.leifmadsen.com http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/asterisk ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 19:20:00 Steve Totaro wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote: It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it. The error is: [Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was supposed to send a LAGRQ with callno 9779, but no such call exists (and I cannot remove lagid, either) Which looks like an internal error. I have been wondering where to report this error. :-) It isn't killing us but I would like to see it go away. It should be gone in the latest release. Do both sides have to be using the latest release? Has this been the same bug since many years ago, or a new moving target that has been hit? Just use SIP and save yourself the pain. If you like, I can order up a similar warning in SIP. The warning is actually fairly safe to ignore, but it bugs the crap out of some people (and then we can similarly argue Just use IAX2 and save yourself the pain). -- Tilghman ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tilghman Lesher tilgh...@mail.jeffandtilghman.com wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 19:20:00 Steve Totaro wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote: It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it. The error is: [Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was supposed to send a LAGRQ with callno 9779, but no such call exists (and I cannot remove lagid, either) Which looks like an internal error. I have been wondering where to report this error. :-) It isn't killing us but I would like to see it go away. It should be gone in the latest release. Do both sides have to be using the latest release? Has this been the same bug since many years ago, or a new moving target that has been hit? Just use SIP and save yourself the pain. If you like, I can order up a similar warning in SIP. The warning is actually fairly safe to ignore, but it bugs the crap out of some people (and then we can similarly argue Just use IAX2 and save yourself the pain). Yes, please do. I would like. I understand you are a developer and you want IAX2 to be great. That is your job, but the fact is that it is not and has caused audio and security problems for YEARS in EVERY release. It should bug you and everyone at Digium that waves the IAX2 flag. While Asterisk's implementation of the SIP RFC is far from compliant, it generally Just Works not matter what version you are using. -- Tilghman -- Thanks, Steve Totaro +18887771888 (Toll Free) +12409381212 (Cell) +12024369784 (Skype) ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? Thanks, MD ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
hello, (if this is correct): IAX is no maintained now but IAX2 is maintained by the Asterisk Developers Team (i'm not sur) please si other responces thanks OCG Technical Support a écrit : After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? Thanks, MD ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- 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 -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
OCG Technical Support wrote: After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? I use IAX with unlimitel.ca on Asterisk 1.6, and I haven't had any issues at all. The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with IAX going through my Sonicwall devices. Just another datapoint for you... - Mike ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Side note and very telling. IAX.cc (Vitelity now) advised against using IAX a long time ago. That would be the same as CiscoGear.com advising to not use Cisco but 3Com. Thanks, Steve On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:04 AM, OCG Technical Support supp...@ocg.ca wrote: After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? Thanks, MD ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com wrote: OCG Technical Support wrote: After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? I use IAX with unlimitel.ca on Asterisk 1.6, and I haven't had any issues at all. The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with IAX going through my Sonicwall devices. Just another datapoint for you... - Mike Just curious. Since IAX only uses ONE port, do you have any idea what the technical reason behind a specific router would be critical? SIP, I can see. -- Thanks, Steve Totaro +18887771888 (Toll Free) +12409381212 (Cell) +12024369784 (Skype) ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with IAX going through my Sonicwall devices. Just another datapoint for you... Just curious. Since IAX only uses ONE port, do you have any idea what the technical reason behind a specific router would be critical? Well, with a Sonicwall TZ170, you had to enabled Firewall VOIP Enable consistent NAT, which was not the default setting. Then, you had to figure out that Firewall Advanced Default UDP Connection Timeout defaulted to 30 seconds, less than the normal Asterisk 60 second registration timeout. Then, for some reason, the TZ170 would simply lose packets. A fraction of calls would end almost immediately after they started, with Asterisk reporting a raw hangup error and INVAL packets, suggesting that some IAX2 packets were being lost, mis-ordered, or mis-translated. Anyway, the Sonicwall TZ170 was totally unreliable for IAX2 connections. They caused me a lot of grief. Avoid them like the plague. The Snapgear 560 just works, which I appreciate very much! - Mike ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:04 AM, OCG Technical Support supp...@ocg.ca wrote: After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? Thanks, MD IAX2 has been a lemon since it's inception. Sure, some people have success. It seems to work OK for IAXModem. I think the problem is that from the slightest version change to another, two boxes with different versions and many times the same version don't work well. I have been saying this for many years (check the archives) and have been paid decent sums of money to say Oh, you are using IAX, and switch them to SIP, everything fixed instantly. Do yourself a favor and ditch IAX2, maybe IAX3.6 might be production ready? -- Thanks, Steve Totaro +18887771888 (Toll Free) +12409381212 (Cell) +12024369784 (Skype) ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
We had some carrier suggest we don't use IAX because SIP had a better fail over capability than IAX. I don't remember the details. We do use both however, with acceptable results. Cary Fitch _ From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of OCG Technical Support Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:05 AM To: 'Asterisk Users List' Subject: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX? After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing support for IAX. Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP? Thanks, MD ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
I use simple port forwarding on an Linux firewall (iptables)...so that's not the issue. I was referring to IAX2 of course (IAX has be gone a long time I think)... Unlimitel is running * 1.4.x (and so am I)... I just can't understand IAX2 connections suddenly dropping (on one day) being protocol issues (if no one changed their * versions). Or is this how IAX2 fails? -Original Message- From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak Sent: March 25, 2009 9:29 AM To: Asterisk Users List Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX? The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with IAX going through my Sonicwall devices. Just another datapoint for you... Just curious. Since IAX only uses ONE port, do you have any idea what the technical reason behind a specific router would be critical? Well, with a Sonicwall TZ170, you had to enabled Firewall VOIP Enable consistent NAT, which was not the default setting. Then, you had to figure out that Firewall Advanced Default UDP Connection Timeout defaulted to 30 seconds, less than the normal Asterisk 60 second registration timeout. Then, for some reason, the TZ170 would simply lose packets. A fraction of calls would end almost immediately after they started, with Asterisk reporting a raw hangup error and INVAL packets, suggesting that some IAX2 packets were being lost, mis-ordered, or mis-translated. Anyway, the Sonicwall TZ170 was totally unreliable for IAX2 connections. They caused me a lot of grief. Avoid them like the plague. The Snapgear 560 just works, which I appreciate very much! - Mike ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- 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 -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 09:59:27 OCG Technical Support wrote: I use simple port forwarding on an Linux firewall (iptables)...so that's not the issue. I was referring to IAX2 of course (IAX has be gone a long time I think)... Unlimitel is running * 1.4.x (and so am I)... I just can't understand IAX2 connections suddenly dropping (on one day) being protocol issues (if no one changed their * versions). Or is this how IAX2 fails? We believe that it's more likely a victim of the economy. More people use SIP, so in an effort to cut their support expenses, ITSPs are dropping IAX2 support. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Voicepulse additionally laid off several tech support staff at the same time as this change. -- Tilghman ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it. The error is: [Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was supposed to send a LAGRQ with callno 9779, but no such call exists (and I cannot remove lagid, either) Which looks like an internal error. I have been wondering where to report this error. :-) It isn't killing us but I would like to see it go away. Cary Fitch -Original Message- From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Tilghman Lesher Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:33 AM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX? On Wednesday 25 March 2009 09:59:27 OCG Technical Support wrote: I use simple port forwarding on an Linux firewall (iptables)...so that's not the issue. I was referring to IAX2 of course (IAX has be gone a long time I think)... Unlimitel is running * 1.4.x (and so am I)... I just can't understand IAX2 connections suddenly dropping (on one day) being protocol issues (if no one changed their * versions). Or is this how IAX2 fails? We believe that it's more likely a victim of the economy. More people use SIP, so in an effort to cut their support expenses, ITSPs are dropping IAX2 support. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Voicepulse additionally laid off several tech support staff at the same time as this change. -- Tilghman ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- 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 -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote: It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it. The error is: [Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was supposed to send a LAGRQ with callno 9779, but no such call exists (and I cannot remove lagid, either) Which looks like an internal error. I have been wondering where to report this error. :-) It isn't killing us but I would like to see it go away. It should be gone in the latest release. -- Tilghman ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher tilgh...@mail.jeffandtilghman.com wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote: It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it. The error is: [Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was supposed to send a LAGRQ with callno 9779, but no such call exists (and I cannot remove lagid, either) Which looks like an internal error. I have been wondering where to report this error. :-) It isn't killing us but I would like to see it go away. It should be gone in the latest release. -- Tilghman Do both sides have to be using the latest release? Has this been the same bug since many years ago, or a new moving target that has been hit? Just use SIP and save yourself the pain. There are methods to get around virtually any of SIP's networking issues and downfalls and it works far better than IAX as far as call quality and Just Working which is kind of what i personally want in a PBX. IAX2 is and has been hit or miss (MOSTLY miss) since before Asterisk 1.0. Digium employees have even expressed this (off the record of course). -- Thanks, Steve Totaro +18887771888 (Toll Free) +12409381212 (Cell) ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
Steve Totaro wrote: IAX2 has been a lemon since it's inception. Sure, some people have success. It seems to work OK for IAXModem. I chose to use IAX2 in developing IAXmodem because IAX2 is relatively simple compared to SIP and because at the time I didn't know of any easy-to-use SIP library with a simple sample program. libiax2 and its accompanying sample programs were ideal for getting things going quickly. In retrospect, I still think that it was a good decision. However, if I had chosen to use SIP instead it would make things like adding T.38 support into it much easier. (But, that said, my purpose in developing IAXmodem was to interface HylaFAX with TDM cards through Asterisk without additional hardware. T.38 support wasn't - and still isn't - ever a goal.) Yet, I did have to work hard to get libiax2 working right. I think the problem is that from the slightest version change to another, two boxes with different versions and many times the same version don't work well. The root cause of that, I suspect, is that Asterisk itself does not use libiax2 for chan_iax2. Consequently, developers really don't have a reference library that is used as the standard. Thanks, Lee. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
