Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards - T38
Fernando Berretta wrote: Tzafir, I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear. Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some modifications on app_fax so the questions are: 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card and this FXO port is forwarded to other ATA/Gateway is asterisk going to transmit this fax using t38 ? Excuse my ignorance, but don't ATAs generally only support T.38 Origination? ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
I haven't tried all of them but.. at least Linksys ATA AdminGuide doesn't specify such limitation FAX Enable T38 To enable the use of the ITU-T T.38 standard for faxing, select yes. Otherwise, select no. The default is yes Thomas Kenyon wrote: Fernando Berretta wrote: Tzafir, I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear. Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some modifications on app_fax so the questions are: 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card and this FXO port is forwarded to other ATA/Gateway is asterisk going to transmit this fax using t38 ? Excuse my ignorance, but don't ATAs generally only support T.38 Origination? ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
T.38 will not work with the fxo card. Zoa Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? Best Regards, Fernando Thomas Kenyon wrote: Steve Underwood wrote: I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. The new asterisk T.38 functionality is from the Asterisk addons 1.6.0b2 version of app_fax (and a few small changes in 1.6.0b4), which I thought someone would have mentioned to you, since it does use spandsp. (Or at least the configure script checks for spandsp, I haven't actually looked at the code). ___ -- 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 ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Benny Amorsen wrote: Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Try reading the GPL and the FSF's interpretation of it. If things are running in the same address space as my code, they need to be GPL compatible, or I am likely to take action. The GPL is not an EULA. You don't have to agree to it to use the software, only to distribute it. This is the key drawback of GPL 2 for my purposes. You can indeed do whatever you want with my GPL code internally. Supply it to anyone as something mingled with non-GPL compatible code, though, and you are in violation of the licence. So, only in house use is OK. Regards, Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Tzafir, I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear. Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some modifications on app_fax so the questions are: 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card and this FXO port is forwarded to other ATA/Gateway is asterisk going to transmit this fax using t38 ? PSTN FAX MACHINEASTERISK(1.6.0b2) FXO CARD---t38?ATA/Gateway-FAX MACHINE 2 - If the first answer is yes, if we compile app_fax with asterisk 1.4x same behavior could be achieved ? Regards, Fernando Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:24PM -0300, Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? You have rx_fax for 1.4 . You also have fax detection in chan_zap, and thus can send faxes from the PSTN to rx_fax. Not exactly the same, but maybe this is actually what you're looking for. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
zoa wrote: T.38 will not work with the fxo card. Zoa That statement is a bit vague. What has been put in add-ons so far is only support for T.38 termination. Not T.38 gateway operation. Steve Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? Best Regards, Fernando Thomas Kenyon wrote: Steve Underwood wrote: I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. The new asterisk T.38 functionality is from the Asterisk addons 1.6.0b2 version of app_fax (and a few small changes in 1.6.0b4), which I thought someone would have mentioned to you, since it does use spandsp. (Or at least the configure script checks for spandsp, I haven't actually looked at the code). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Thanks for clarify.. so Asterisk will be able to receive faxes which comes from a Gateway using t38 but will not be able to relay faxes which comes from PSTN through a FXO card to other Gateway using t38 can this version of app_fax be used with Asterisk 1.4x ? Steve Underwood wrote: zoa wrote: T.38 will not work with the fxo card. Zoa That statement is a bit vague. What has been put in add-ons so far is only support for T.38 termination. Not T.38 gateway operation. Steve Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? Best Regards, Fernando Thomas Kenyon wrote: Steve Underwood wrote: I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. The new asterisk T.38 functionality is from the Asterisk addons 1.6.0b2 version of app_fax (and a few small changes in 1.6.0b4), which I thought someone would have mentioned to you, since it does use spandsp. (Or at least the configure script checks for spandsp, I haven't actually looked at the code). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Fernando Berretta wrote: Tzafir, I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear. Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some modifications on app_fax so the questions are: 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card and this FXO port is forwarded to other ATA/Gateway is asterisk going to transmit this fax using t38 ? PSTN FAX MACHINEASTERISK(1.6.0b2) FXO CARD---t38?ATA/Gateway-FAX MACHINE No this is not going to work with the code you find in add-ons (Steve Underwood was right, my last email was a bit vague). The FAX - ASTERISK - t.38 part will not work. 2 - If the first answer is yes, if we compile app_fax with asterisk 1.4x same behavior could be achieved ? Regards, Fernando Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:24PM -0300, Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? You have rx_fax for 1.4 . You also have fax detection in chan_zap, and thus can send faxes from the PSTN to rx_fax. Not exactly the same, but maybe this is actually what you're looking for. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? Best Regards, Fernando Thomas Kenyon wrote: Steve Underwood wrote: I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. The new asterisk T.38 functionality is from the Asterisk addons 1.6.0b2 version of app_fax (and a few small changes in 1.6.0b4), which I thought someone would have mentioned to you, since it does use spandsp. (Or at least the configure script checks for spandsp, I haven't actually looked at the code). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:24PM -0300, Fernando Berretta wrote: Dear All, Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with Asterisk 1.4x ? Someone has tried it ? You have rx_fax for 1.4 . You also have fax detection in chan_zap, and thus can send faxes from the PSTN to rx_fax. Not exactly the same, but maybe this is actually what you're looking for. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:35:35PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote: Your original comment was that you cannot use T.38 and G.729 in Asterisk at the same time. On a technical level, this is /not/ true, especially if the T.38 implementation does not rely on SpanDSP. (whether or not such an implementation exists is another question) Breaking license conditions is a separate issue altogether. That is correct. The incompatibility is not inherent to the T.38 interface in Asterisk. Rather, to its implementation using SpanDSP code in app_fax. I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are installed and acquired separately. They are not installed separately. They are modules loaded into the same memory space. That's almost like asserting that you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine. Those are two separate processes. Completely separate from one another. This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL (or of the application of copyrights laws to computer software). A more meaningful interpretation of the GPL would be that you either can or can't run a T.38 implementation with Asterisk /full stop/. Either the license is compatible, or it isn't. Trying to force any other interpretation on people will end up with you being dismissed as an extremist. Here is where things get interesting: If we set aside proprietary licenses such as the ABE, we will see that Asterisk is, in fact, dual-licensed. 1. GPL 2. GPL + exception (2) is the LICENSE file in the Asterisk source tree. (1) is what has enabled so far linking with [rt]x_fax, app_fax and linking with mysql (at least in the past it was necessary for mysql. Not exactly sure now). But if you use (1) non of the exceptions apply. And specifically, you cannot link it with code whose usage is even limited such as the g729 codec. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Rob Hillis wrote: T.38 is for all intents and purposes a codec. It's purpose is to re-encode a fax transmission as a data stream to be re-assembled at the other end as if it were a fax call. Seems to me to be pretty close to the definition of a codec to me. T.38 is not a simple re-encoder. It cannot work on a single stream, independent of the related stream going in the opposite direction. This is not what most people think of as a codec, and it doesn't fit into the way codecs are handled in most platforms. This includes Asterisk, where the two directions of codec processing are independent pipes. Your original comment was that you cannot use T.38 and G.729 in Asterisk at the same time. On a technical level, this is /not/ true, especially if the T.38 implementation does not rely on SpanDSP. (whether or not such an implementation exists is another question) Breaking license conditions is a separate issue altogether. I was talking about the T.38 support which has been added to Asterisk add-ons. You also appear to have answered another one of your questions on this forum to someone else (why on earth would you want to remove SpanDSP as a dependency?) by telling us that you can't run G.729 at the same time as T.38. Again, this was with reference to the code which has been added to Asterisk add-ons. I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are installed and acquired separately. That's almost like asserting that you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine. Try reading the GPL and the FSF's interpretation of it. If things are running in the same address space as my code, they need to be GPL compatible, or I am likely to take action. We have tackled this issue in other ways, taking non-GPL code outside the address space of GPL code. This can work well for things like G.729, as the compute in the codec is so great it swamps the process to process communications overhead. It creates a greater problem for things like ucLinux platforms (e.g. Blackfin), as everything on the entire machine is in the same address space. A more meaningful interpretation of the GPL would be that you either can or can't run a T.38 implementation with Asterisk /full stop/. Either the license is compatible, or it isn't. Trying to force any other interpretation on people will end up with you being dismissed as an extremist. An extremist is someone who thinks they can do as they please, without regard to the legitimate rights of others. In this case it appears to be an accurate description of you. I write code. I let people use it. I set reasonable, and widely established rules for its use. I expect people to stick to them. I never ask anyone to use my stuff. If you don't like my rules, Attractel provides an alternative T.38 implementation, which is fully licence compatible with Asterisk ABE and proprietary codecs. Regards, Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Tzafrir Cohen wrote: I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are installed and acquired separately. They are not installed separately. They are modules loaded into the same memory space. Absolutely they are installed separately. G.729 is a product you /purchase/ and the install onto your Asterisk server and load as a completely separate module to app_fax. The fact that they are /written/ by the same company is irrelevant. That's almost like asserting that you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine. Those are two separate processes. Completely separate from one another. This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL (or of the application of copyrights laws to computer software). Perhaps not the best example. Perhaps a better example is the /proprietary/ nvidia video driver used by a large number of people with NVidia hardware - myself included. Granted, x.org is not released under the GPL license, however assuming it was then by your logic you wouldn't be able to use the nvidia driver. To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting. It goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to the other end of the scale. I am yet to find /any/ situation where any kind of extremism is a good thing. If the FSF starts trying to enforce conditions such as these, they're going to look every bit as bad as the companies such as Microsoft or Lexmark have in the past and do themselves some significant damage. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:25:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote: Tzafrir Cohen wrote: I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are installed and acquired separately. They are not installed separately. They are modules loaded into the same memory space. Absolutely they are installed separately. G.729 is a product you /purchase/ and the install onto your Asterisk server and load as a completely separate module to app_fax. The fact that they are /written/ by the same company is irrelevant. That's almost like asserting that you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine. Those are two separate processes. Completely separate from one another. This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL (or of the application of copyrights laws to computer software). Perhaps not the best example. Perhaps a better example is the /proprietary/ nvidia video driver used by a large number of people with NVidia hardware - myself included. Granted, x.org is not released under the GPL license, however assuming it was then by your logic you wouldn't be able to use the nvidia driver. As you mentioned, X.org is not GPL. There's no nVidia driver for, say, Xvnc :-) To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting. It goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to the other end of the scale. IP is the Internet Protocol. We're talking about copyrights here. Don't try to bundle in completely different cencepts such as patents and trademarks. I am yet to find /any/ situation where any kind of extremism is a good thing. If the FSF starts trying to enforce conditions such as these, they're going to look every bit as bad as the companies such as Microsoft or Lexmark have in the past and do themselves some significant damage. Right. So why don't we all start using the g729/g723 code from imagine_URL_here ? Is it OK for Cisco or Avaya to start merging parts of the Asterisk source code into their products? Maybe in a different world the coyright laws woulld be different and hence copyleft would not be needed. Right now it is what we have. Copyleft licenses (mostly the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL) have played an insturmental role in the generation of a large and solid pool of software you can freely use and modify. In addition, it is not the FSF folks that are aggressivly forcing licenses. The FSF has, for years, avoided such pulic actions and preferred quiet settelments. Sadly, this has not been good enough. As even reputable companies often don't abide to the license under which they distribute their software. And ignore requests to do so. The developers of busybox tried before: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html But then again, those developers are a bunch of Internet Protocol extremists. They produce nothing useful. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:25:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote: To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting. It goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to the other end of the scale. IP is the Internet Protocol. We're talking about copyrights here. Don't try to bundle in completely different cencepts such as patents and trademarks. Err, even I assumed he was referring to the Intellectual Property extremes of companies such as Microsoft. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Try reading the GPL and the FSF's interpretation of it. If things are running in the same address space as my code, they need to be GPL compatible, or I am likely to take action. The GPL is not an EULA. You don't have to agree to it to use the software, only to distribute it. /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] FXO Cards - T38
T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so yes it /can/ be used at the same time as any other codec - just that only /one/ codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a, but once fax tones are detected the call will change codecs to T.38. According to the release notes for 1.6.0-b4... - 11873, Added core API changes to handle T.38 origination and termination (The version of app_fax in Asterisk-addons now supports this.) This should be all that is necessary to run a T.38 gateway. Steve Underwood wrote: Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm curious how this will affect iaxmodem. MD _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Hillis Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:12 AM To: Asterisk Users List Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards - T38 T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so yes it can be used at the same time as any other codec - just that only one codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a, but once fax tones are detected the call will change codecs to T.38. According to the release notes for 1.6.0-b4... - 11873, Added core API changes to handle T.38 origination and termination (The version of app_fax in Asterisk-addons now supports this.) This should be all that is necessary to run a T.38 gateway. Steve Underwood wrote: Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
T.38 is not a codec. A codec has one input and one output. T.38 is an interactive protocol. This, however, has nothing to do with what I said. If you use G.729 in the same asterisk as my spandsp library, you are breaking my licence conditions. Steve Rob Hillis wrote: T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so yes it /can/ be used at the same time as any other codec - just that only /one/ codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a, but once fax tones are detected the call will change codecs to T.38. According to the release notes for 1.6.0-b4... - 11873, Added core API changes to handle T.38 origination and termination (The version of app_fax in Asterisk-addons now supports this.) This should be all that is necessary to run a T.38 gateway. Steve Underwood wrote: Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Steve Underwood wrote: I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. The new asterisk T.38 functionality is from the Asterisk addons 1.6.0b2 version of app_fax (and a few small changes in 1.6.0b4), which I thought someone would have mentioned to you, since it does use spandsp. (Or at least the configure script checks for spandsp, I haven't actually looked at the code). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Michelle Dupuis wrote: Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm curious how this will affect iaxmodem. Why on earth would you want to eliminiate spandsp? (which app_fax from asterisk addons appears to use). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Steve Underwood wrote: T.38 is not a codec. A codec has one input and one output. T.38 is an interactive protocol. This, however, has nothing to do with what I said. If you use G.729 in the same asterisk as my spandsp library, you are breaking my licence conditions. Steve I should hope it isn't, I have an old CS6220 based ~ATA here (actually I've got 2 spare now), that supports T.38 fax, and when it offers a T.38 reinvite, even if you answer it you still get the G.711 stream along with the T.38 one. I don't know if this is supposed to happen, but it is a very old implementation. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
I think you are missing something. Steve means that since its in add-ons its probably a GPL addition and not compatible with the g729 licensing. A t.38 gateway involves more than origination and termination, those 2 are pretty easy and do not involve any modems, the gatewaying is the harder part. Zoa. Rob Hillis wrote: T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so yes it /can/ be used at the same time as any other codec - just that only /one/ codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a, but once fax tones are detected the call will change codecs to T.38. According to the release notes for 1.6.0-b4... - 11873, Added core API changes to handle T.38 origination and termination (The version of app_fax in Asterisk-addons now supports this.) This should be all that is necessary to run a T.38 gateway. Steve Underwood wrote: Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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 ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Wow, an answer phrased in the form of a flame... A more supportive tone might actually encourage the Asterisk userbase to grow! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Kenyon Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:22 AM To: Asterisk Users List Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards - T38 Michelle Dupuis wrote: Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm curious how this will affect iaxmodem. Why on earth would you want to eliminiate spandsp? (which app_fax from asterisk addons appears to use). ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Michelle Dupuis wrote: Wow, an answer phrased in the form of a flame... A more supportive tone might actually encourage the Asterisk userbase to grow! Okay, if you really want a more constructive answer. The addition to asterisk was an API change to allow app_fax from asterisk-addons to talk to asterisk. app_fax uses spandsp. Why on earth would you want to eliminiate the need for spandsp? It would involve re-doing really a lot of work, and spandsp is one of the finest pieces of coding to be associated with asterisk. Is that supportive enough? Bug ID #0011761 looks more interesting. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
About the only reason for eliminating SpanDSP is compatibility with the GPL license. Remember that /any/ feature added to the free version of Asterisk is going to be added to ABE as well - ergo, the licensing of any libraries required need to be compatible with a /non/-open source license. Thomas Kenyon wrote: Michelle Dupuis wrote: Wow, an answer phrased in the form of a flame... A more supportive tone might actually encourage the Asterisk userbase to grow! Okay, if you really want a more constructive answer. The addition to asterisk was an API change to allow app_fax from asterisk-addons to talk to asterisk. app_fax uses spandsp. Why on earth would you want to eliminiate the need for spandsp? It would involve re-doing really a lot of work, and spandsp is one of the finest pieces of coding to be associated with asterisk. Is that supportive enough? Bug ID #0011761 looks more interesting. ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
T.38 is for all intents and purposes a codec. It's purpose is to re-encode a fax transmission as a data stream to be re-assembled at the other end as if it were a fax call. Seems to me to be pretty close to the definition of a codec to me. Your original comment was that you cannot use T.38 and G.729 in Asterisk at the same time. On a technical level, this is /not/ true, especially if the T.38 implementation does not rely on SpanDSP. (whether or not such an implementation exists is another question) Breaking license conditions is a separate issue altogether. You also appear to have answered another one of your questions on this forum to someone else (why on earth would you want to remove SpanDSP as a dependency?) by telling us that you can't run G.729 at the same time as T.38. I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are installed and acquired separately. That's almost like asserting that you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine. A more meaningful interpretation of the GPL would be that you either can or can't run a T.38 implementation with Asterisk /full stop/. Either the license is compatible, or it isn't. Trying to force any other interpretation on people will end up with you being dismissed as an extremist. Steve Underwood wrote: T.38 is not a codec. A codec has one input and one output. T.38 is an interactive protocol. This, however, has nothing to do with what I said. If you use G.729 in the same asterisk as my spandsp library, you are breaking my licence conditions. Steve Rob Hillis wrote: T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so yes it /can/ be used at the same time as any other codec - just that only /one/ codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a, but once fax tones are detected the call will change codecs to T.38. According to the release notes for 1.6.0-b4... - 11873, Added core API changes to handle T.38 origination and termination (The version of app_fax in Asterisk-addons now supports this.) This should be all that is necessary to run a T.38 gateway. Steve Underwood wrote: Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Fernando Berretta wrote: Hi, Could some one let me know if a fax is received through a FXO card connected to * and fax machine is connected to a Linksys FXS device which support T38, is T38 going to be used for faxes which comes from PSTN or go through PSTN ? or because of Asterisk T38 passthrough support it is not possible ? so is for this scenery better to use external FXO gateways with t38 support ? Regards, Fernando ___ -- 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] FXO Cards - T38
Rob Hillis wrote: Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38. I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729. The only real option available at the moment is to keep one PSTN line on an ATA with an FXO port and T.38 support available and direct calls from the fax machines through to it. However, I should point out that while I believe this should be possible, I haven't actually tried it myself. Steve ___ -- 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] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? Thanks. channel bank is more friendly to faxes and modems (v90 can work too) ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP which provides the same echo cancellation and distortion issues as a call that passed through an FXO/FXS card. Ejay Hire -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:42 AM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1 Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? Thanks. channel bank is more friendly to faxes and modems (v90 can work too) ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:08:43AM -0600, Ejay Hire wrote: This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP which provides the same echo cancellation and distortion issues as a call that passed through an FXO/FXS card. The issue here is an implementation bug of Zaptel rather than a fundemental archtectual flaw. For fax or modem to work well you need a good line. One of the problems that may cause line quality problems is different clock speeds of different components of the system. They may cause an occasional click every number of seconds. The problem I referred to is that different Zaptel cards may have a different clock. Asterisk uses the clock of the master zaptel device, but it is not exactly clear who that master device is (basically: the first Zaptel device). No other device tries to get clocking from it. If you use an external channel bank you work around the problem by connecting all the external connections (both PRI lines and channel bank FXO/FXS lines) through the same PRI card. That card will not have a problem being in sync with itself. As for our device: our short-term solution is to sync the PC clock from Zaptel as we can already sync our device from the PC. But the long term solution is to sync our device (and other zaptel devices) from the master zaptel device. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:29:32PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:08:43AM -0600, Ejay Hire wrote: This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP which provides the same echo cancellation and distortion issues as a call that passed through an FXO/FXS card. The issue here is an implementation bug of Zaptel rather than a fundemental archtectual flaw. For fax or modem to work well you need a good line. One of the problems that may cause line quality problems is different clock speeds of different components of the system. They may cause an occasional click every number of seconds. The jargon is clock slip, and it happens when you don't have your T-1 clocking master/slave hierarchy set up correctly -- or when you have drops from two different switches from two different carriers (local and LD spans, for example). The problem I referred to is that different Zaptel cards may have a different clock. Asterisk uses the clock of the master zaptel device, but it is not exactly clear who that master device is (basically: the first Zaptel device). No other device tries to get clocking from it. If you use an external channel bank you work around the problem by connecting all the external connections (both PRI lines and channel bank FXO/FXS lines) through the same PRI card. That card will not have a problem being in sync with itself. As for our device: our short-term solution is to sync the PC clock from Zaptel as we can already sync our device from the PC. But the long term solution is to sync our device (and other zaptel devices) from the master zaptel device. Well, optimally, every T-1 card should be slaved to it's span, and buffering should take care of keeping various spans in sync with each other. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later, they stop having sex with you. -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_ ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
Ejay Hire wrote: This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP are you sure? ;) we can connect two zaptel channels directly (example - call from channel bank to pstn. both connections to channel bank and pstn are e1). ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
YES! Many machines do NOT work well with multiple analog cards. Especially the Digium ones. Channel banks with FXO circuits are harder to come by on the used market, though Many all FXS channel banks can be had used, though. If you want multiple FXO's and do not want to go the T1 route, look towards the Sangoma A200 John Novack Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? Thanks. Dovid ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? Thanks. In my experience a T-1 port w/channel bank just works better. The more cards you use, the more interrupts are generated. My standard configuration for analog FXS ports is a T-1 card (Digium or Sangoma) and an Adtran TA750 Channel Bank. The Adtrans can be found very cheap on eBay. FXO ports tend to be much expensive, but you can find them on eBay as well. Why not just get a PRI or channelized voice T-1? ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:57PM +0200, Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? If you need enough ports to make a T-1 card cost-efficient, then you might oughtta be looking at an Ethernet to FXO media gateway instead -- assuming you need analog interfaces. FXO side, why not just go T-1 or PRI? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later, they stop having sex with you. -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_ ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
Looking at the number's now it seems that a T1 will be more. Anyone here sell PRI's ? - Original Message - From: Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1 On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:57PM +0200, Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? If you need enough ports to make a T-1 card cost-efficient, then you might oughtta be looking at an Ethernet to FXO media gateway instead -- assuming you need analog interfaces. FXO side, why not just go T-1 or PRI? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later, they stop having sex with you. -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_ ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
You'll find the cost of a PRI varies dramatically from one telco to another. I've heard numbers in one case where three analog pstn lines cost the same as a PRI, another case where 16 analog pstn lines cost the same as a PRI. And, having worked in the telecomm industry for many years, there are still a very large number of telco's that do not support PRI's at all. Rich Dovid B wrote: Looking at the number's now it seems that a T1 will be more. Anyone here sell PRI's ? - Original Message - From: Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1 On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:57PM +0200, Dovid B wrote: Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ? If you need enough ports to make a T-1 card cost-efficient, then you might oughtta be looking at an Ethernet to FXO media gateway instead -- assuming you need analog interfaces. FXO side, why not just go T-1 or PRI? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later, they stop having sex with you. -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_ ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards for TDM400P....
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:14:37PM -0500, Steven Sokol wrote: Is there any word on the availability of the FXO cards for the TDM400P? I have an application that would benefit. If it has been dropped please let me know. Word has it that they should hit distributors in the next week or perhaps two. One caveat -- they do not have FCC certifications yet. I have a pair of them backordered from my distributor. So don't give up. Just a few more days. Along the same lines, what about the 16-port FXS/FXO card that was alluded to about 2 months ago? IIRC, it was to be released in about 6 weeks (or about 2 weeks ago now...). I'm not as interested as I was, as I've gone the channel bank route now, but I'm still very interested in seeing more information about it... Rob -- Rob Fugina, Systems Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.geekthing.com My firewall filters MS Office attachments. Jesus saves, Allah forgives, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. ___ 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
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards for TDM400P....
Is there any word on the availability of the FXO cards for the TDM400P? I have an application that would benefit. If it has been dropped please let me know. Word has it that they should hit distributors in the next week or perhaps two. One caveat -- they do not have FCC certifications yet. I have a pair of them backordered from my distributor. So don't give up. Just a few more days. Steve Sokol ___ 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
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
FWIW, Most Telcos (At least for us CLECs) it becomes more cost effective for us to run a DS1 to a customers location if they have 5 CO lines or more. I would hunt around for a company that would do that for you. If you get the T100P Card @ $500 it's cheaper than 6 $100 FXO cards. Telco can take the T1 right into your * box and you'll have plenty of channels to spare in the future. Tim Thompson CPE Manager http://www.amatechtel.com (806) 722-2227 -Original Message- From: John Vozza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Barton Hodges wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. Can you point me to the documentation that states this? If I need to connect 3 or 4 pstn lines, are my only choices to add another box and connect them via IAX trunking, or to wait for the 4-port FXO card? Does anyone know when the 4-port card will be released? It is possible but not recommended to put more then 2 x100p's in a box. I have a system with a TDM400 and 4 X100p's. Key is to get a motherbrd that lets you assign IRQ resources since you do not want the above cards to share IRQ's (That said the TDM and an X100 do share an IRQ without a problem but this is a 2.4GHZ machine) Using more then one box is best. As for the FXO modules I have passed out many many times holding my breath! :) John - NetRom Internet Services973-208-1339 voice [EMAIL PROTECTED] 973-208-0942 fax http://www.netrom.com - ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Barton Hodges wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. Can you point me to the documentation that states this? If I need to connect 3 or 4 pstn lines, are my only choices to add another box and connect them via IAX trunking, or to wait for the 4-port FXO card? Does anyone know when the 4-port card will be released? It is possible but not recommended to put more then 2 x100p's in a box. I have a system with a TDM400 and 4 X100p's. Key is to get a motherbrd that lets you assign IRQ resources since you do not want the above cards to share IRQ's (That said the TDM and an X100 do share an IRQ without a problem but this is a 2.4GHZ machine) Using more then one box is best. As for the FXO modules I have passed out many many times holding my breath! :) John - NetRom Internet Services973-208-1339 voice [EMAIL PROTECTED] 973-208-0942 fax http://www.netrom.com - ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. Is there any particular reason that Aastra PT350/390/450 phones won't do the job of these other (4x the price) phones you've looked at? I find these phones are very good and cheap, too. I would strongly suggest the channel bank (Adit 600) and T100P. It'll save you headaches in the long run and the cost is minimal, especially once you factor into account all the screwing around with IRQs and echo settings and so on you're going to have to do with the X101P and TDM400P cards. The T1 card is what, $500 and the channel bank will probably run you $900 after you manage to find a couple of quad FXO cards for it. That's still way cheaper than the $6k proprietary system you've been mentioning. You don't need a crazy quad xeon processor to handle this kind of load and four nine's availability (down less than a day a year) is trivial to attain with standard hardware. If you're serious about your system I would spend the money to have hardware available to swap out when something dies. This includes the channel bank and T1 card, although you don't need the chassis for the channel bank, just the processor/FXS/FXO modules and power supply. It'd be cheapest just to buy the cheapest adit600 on ebay for spare parts. I seriously doubt you have the need to fully hot-swappable hardware, although the channel bank is fully hot-swap. :-) Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
what city are you in? Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Rowley wrote: Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 13:02, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. Over priced phones for what you will end up using them for. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. Don't bother with the dialogic boards. As you state, they are way expensive. Maybe you should go back and rethink the channel bank way of doing it. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. An attitude like that, you might need to. You have stumbled into a need that isn't well supported because you are stuck at a level where the higher density cards a more expensive than you want to spend, yet still cheaper than the alternatives. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? $500 - T100P card $500 - decent PC $800 - bad ebay day for a channel bank $480 - 16 analog phones at $30 (att 957 with speakerphone) -- $2280 + someones(maybe you) to do the labor. You might want to budget almost $1k for a FXO card in case you can't find one on ebay for the channel bank you get. So even at $3280 and some labor, this beats your $6k. You can add on SIP phones later when you are ready for it and do it one at a time. -- Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
Comments on this are welcome. Here is my opinion... I just went through this. Your office size is not economical. Actually smaller or larger would be better. Getting a channel bank and then using only 8 ports is a waste. OK if you have 24 extensions but 3x to expensive if you only use 8 ports. I'm working on a 3x8 system for a not-for-profet I'm doing the work for free and they value every cent as they live off donated money. (You don't want to tell donors that 100 of their $20.00 checks went into a new PBX and did nothig to save sick homeless kids or whatever.) Here is what I told them: Go VOIP. You can get decent IP phones like BT100, or whatever for $65 to $100 each. Buy eight of these. Next get a VOIP service provider to provide you with a PSTN DID (A phone number) VoicePulse will do this for about $8.00/month pluss outgoing per minute cost. So you get as many incomming lines as you need and you have zero hardware interface at your site. (other then your DSL line.) Keep one or two analog POTS lines and use one or two FXO cards either Digium other. You want POTs for free local calls and for 911 calls and for if the VIOP service fails or if the DSL line is down. But one POTS line for the whole office is enough So now your Asterisk server is just one re-cycled PC with one FXO card installed, nothing else. Pretty dard cheap. If using a re-cycled computer as the server _do_ keep spares on site. You don't want a broken power supply fan to crash your phone system for a day. I'm suggesting a full-up hot spare Asterisk server system be kept on-site. --- Michael Rowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users = Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] KG6OMK __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
Michael Rowley wrote: Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users I would use this: 5XCisco 7940 = $1400-1500) 2XEriccson G4 = $900 (this will give you 8 incoming lines) 1XAsterisk server = $500 (I am using your estimate here) TOTAL = $2800 - $2900 OR 3XSipura SPA 2000 = £300 (Giving you 6 ports for your handsets) 5XAnalog handsets = $300+ (Allowing $60 per handset, but could be more or even less :)) 2XEriccson G4 = $900 (Same as above) 1XAsterisk server = $500 (Same as above) TOTAL = $2000+ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
I think this is a great solution...I'm doing the same thing. The only snag I'm running into is finding a VIOP provider that will provide DID numbers in my local calling area! (Spokane,WA area code:509) You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that will give you a DID for your local calling area. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Albertson Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems Comments on this are welcome. Here is my opinion... I just went through this. Your office size is not economical. Actually smaller or larger would be better. Getting a channel bank and then using only 8 ports is a waste. OK if you have 24 extensions but 3x to expensive if you only use 8 ports. I'm working on a 3x8 system for a not-for-profet I'm doing the work for free and they value every cent as they live off donated money. (You don't want to tell donors that 100 of their $20.00 checks went into a new PBX and did nothig to save sick homeless kids or whatever.) Here is what I told them: Go VOIP. You can get decent IP phones like BT100, or whatever for $65 to $100 each. Buy eight of these. Next get a VOIP service provider to provide you with a PSTN DID (A phone number) VoicePulse will do this for about $8.00/month pluss outgoing per minute cost. So you get as many incomming lines as you need and you have zero hardware interface at your site. (other then your DSL line.) Keep one or two analog POTS lines and use one or two FXO cards either Digium other. You want POTs for free local calls and for 911 calls and for if the VIOP service fails or if the DSL line is down. But one POTS line for the whole office is enough So now your Asterisk server is just one re-cycled PC with one FXO card installed, nothing else. Pretty dard cheap. If using a re-cycled computer as the server _do_ keep spares on site. You don't want a broken power supply fan to crash your phone system for a day. I'm suggesting a full-up hot spare Asterisk server system be kept on-site. --- Michael Rowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users = Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] KG6OMK __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:00, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: $500 - T100P card $500 - decent PC $800 - bad ebay day for a channel bank $480 - 16 analog phones at $30 (att 957 with speakerphone) that $800 will be very good actually if you can find an Adit600 with FXO ports... they are scarce on ebay and always command higher prices. If he wants displays on the phones PT350s are cheap refurbs for about $70 apiece. And you validate my point. I was estimating in there for a FXS channel bank and then turning around and purchasing a FXO card full price. -- Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. -- Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
I just bought a machine with a micro atx form factor for Asterisk. It has no CDROM, keyboard, or video. just RAM and a CPU and a very small disk (4GB) I paid $50 each for the CPU, M/B, RAM and case for $200 total. OK, so back to your question: Buy a stack of the above boxes and put three FXO card in each. Use IAX2 truncking between the boxes. I don't like the micro-ATX case I bought. Still looking for one that make _zero_ fan noise while still having good cooling. Maybe no such thing exists? (I may have to modify the case my installing a low speed 120mm fan in the case side. a 4 hole saw in the drill press would do it. but prefer to find a comercial source. A case with an external wall wort P/S would be nice) --- Michael Rowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users = Chris Albertson Home: 310-376-1029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 310-990-7550 Office: 310-336-5189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] KG6OMK __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
This maybe a stupid question. Pardon me. I see everyone talking about purchasing the channel bank from ebay. 1. As a user who has never used ebay, are these used equipments ? 2. Are these reliable in terms of all ports working and all hardware intact? 3. Is there a huge price difference between purchasing it from a authorized dealer and ebay ? 4. Or was this suggestion just because the system being setup for is a NPO who like to save, even if it is a couple of dollors? 5. If we find some issues with it, can we return it for another ? 6. How far reliability becomes an issue in purchasing it from ebay or an authorized reseller. Cheers Sri Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: $500 - T100P card $500 - decent PC $800 - bad ebay day for a channel bank $480 - 16 analog phones at $30 (att 957 with speakerphone) that $800 will be very good actually if you can find an Adit600 with FXO ports... they are scarce on ebay and always command higher prices. If he wants displays on the phones PT350s are cheap refurbs for about $70 apiece. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
Are the Aastra PTXXX phones ADSI? How compatable are they with asterisk? I see some PT450s on eBay for reasonable prices, and I just may be tempted to pick one up for fun. Is it worthwhile? Thanks! Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Kohlsmith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. Is there any particular reason that Aastra PT350/390/450 phones won't do the job of these other (4x the price) phones you've looked at? I find these phones are very good and cheap, too. I would strongly suggest the channel bank (Adit 600) and T100P. It'll save you headaches in the long run and the cost is minimal, especially once you factor into account all the screwing around with IRQs and echo settings and so on you're going to have to do with the X101P and TDM400P cards. The T1 card is what, $500 and the channel bank will probably run you $900 after you manage to find a couple of quad FXO cards for it. That's still way cheaper than the $6k proprietary system you've been mentioning. You don't need a crazy quad xeon processor to handle this kind of load and four nine's availability (down less than a day a year) is trivial to attain with standard hardware. If you're serious about your system I would spend the money to have hardware available to swap out when something dies. This includes the channel bank and T1 card, although you don't need the chassis for the channel bank, just the processor/FXS/FXO modules and power supply. It'd be cheapest just to buy the cheapest adit600 on ebay for spare parts. I seriously doubt you have the need to fully hot-swappable hardware, although the channel bank is fully hot-swap. :-) Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 19:38, Chris Albertson wrote: I just bought a machine with a micro atx form factor for Asterisk. It has no CDROM, keyboard, or video. just RAM and a CPU and a very small disk (4GB) I paid $50 each for the CPU, M/B, RAM and case for $200 total. What were the motherboards you choose ? -- Juanjo sin .sig ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
Are the Aastra PTXXX phones ADSI? How compatable are they with asterisk? I see some PT450s on eBay for reasonable prices, and I just may be tempted to pick one up for fun. Is it worthwhile? Yes they're ADSI. They work very well with *, to the extent that * has ADSI support. (meaning * does not have complete ADSI support, but whatever * DOES support, these phones use just fine.) The Bell Vista 350/450 phones are just rebranded Aastra phones. The wiki has information on how to unlock all these phones so you can load up your own ADSI programs, even in slot #2 (the autostarting slot). Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that will give you a DID for your local calling area. Why do you need to? Get a couple of regular PSTN ports for your inbound calls. ... unless I'm missing something. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
I do have 2 X100P for my PSTN ports for inbound calls. The problem is when both those port are busy, then callers get a busy signal or I have to muck with caller-waiting from the PSTN line. What I'd like to do is get a VOIP DID number that is set for my local calling area. Then configure my PSTN ports to hunt to my DID VOIP number when the PSTN lines are busy. My PSTN provider is Qwest and they have Call Following that allows me to set this up. Thanks, Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Kohlsmith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that will give you a DID for your local calling area. Why do you need to? Get a couple of regular PSTN ports for your inbound calls. ... unless I'm missing something. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
Voicepulse Connect $7.99/month Up to 4 calls at a time Your local telco $30+/month Up to 1 call at a time. Yes, I do belive you missed something. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Kohlsmith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that will give you a DID for your local calling area. Why do you need to? Get a couple of regular PSTN ports for your inbound calls. ... unless I'm missing something. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/aster isk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
Comments Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sri Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards This maybe a stupid question. Pardon me. I see everyone talking about purchasing the channel bank from ebay. 1. As a user who has never used ebay, are these used equipments ? Some are, Others are not. 2. Are these reliable in terms of all ports working and all hardware intact? It depends on the auction. There are no gaurantees, but most people will either list any known problems or specifiy that the unit is sold as is. 3. Is there a huge price difference between purchasing it from a authorized dealer and ebay ? Most of the time 4. Or was this suggestion just because the system being setup for is a NPO who like to save, even if it is a couple of dollors? Not sure. 5. If we find some issues with it, can we return it for another ? Could be, but there's always a chance of getting stuck with it 6. How far reliability becomes an issue in purchasing it from ebay or an authorized reseller. Once again, most people have good experiences or ebay wouldn't do so well, but ther are no gaurantees. :) Cheers Sri I think ebay is fine. I also think there are times to buy new equipment. It really depends on the circumstances and the needs of the person. I guess it comes down to what you feel comfortable with. Sincerely, Andy Hester ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
- Original Message - From: Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. I have 4 in a box spanning 4 channels across a t1. 4 FXS lines from a Praxon box to the X100P's, through T100Ps to another building that terminate through a tdm400p. No problems. Thanks Mark, Christian ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 19:11, Barton Hodges wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote: Hey guys, has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses experience Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. Can you point me to the documentation that states this? If I need to connect 3 or 4 pstn lines, are my only choices to add another box and connect them via IAX trunking, or to wait for the 4-port FXO card? Does anyone know when the 4-port card will be released? I don't have a link right off hand. What you move on to at this point is a channel bank and at least a T100P card. It doesn't take much growing at that point for you to be in need of a T1 incoming. Having already moved to at least a T100P card puts you down the road to preserving your investment. Especially since the 6 FXO interfaces otherwise would have cost you $600 anyways, and then you have to buy FXS ports or VoIP phones. As was mentioned before, this level of pbx is relatively more expensive because you are just almost to the break even point for going all digital. So while the step up from say a 2 port pbx is pretty fair, the step up from the T100P to more lines ends up being just a trivial configuration change. -- Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Steven Critchfield wrote: has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine? Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install. that 2 cards limit was primarily meant for E400P or T400P, not the X100P (not sure if it'd be IRQ dependent because both the X100P and the E400P would take a single IRQ each, i think it was more a CPU thingy) ... I've successfully put upto 5 X100P in one box, with no problems, and sharing IRQ is no problem either (as long as youre not using archaic XT-PIC and not sharing IRQ between two zaptel devices) with IO-APIC it really makes a difference, or possibly I haven't tested it too much, but it seems to be working for the last 4 odd months 16: 159337325 IO-APIC-level wcfxo 17: 159338366 IO-APIC-level wcfxo 18: 159891316 IO-APIC-level wcfxs, eth0 19: 159336231 IO-APIC-level wcfxo if you've got a decent motherboard, give it a shot, it'd be fun to see 6 X100P in one box, but as others have rightly pointed out, that may not be the most cost-effective route and you're getting into T1+cb territory - wasim ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
If you are in an area code serviced by a SIP provider, you can run everything over a broadband connection. I would keep one POTS line to guarantee access to emergency services, though. While a proprietary system may seem attractive now, wait until it's a couple of years old and you can't get phones or parts for it anymore. Paul Mahler mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 650.207.9855 fax: 877.408.0105 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Rowley Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards Hey, Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system for my new buisiness. 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5 to save money. I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055 is the best one I have found, but the price seems to be about 400$ per phone. $2K, plus a 500$ server, then how to get the 6 B1(pots) lines into it. I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with an FXO card. I wish there was an X400P card with 4 ports on it, but, que sera. I can get them for 100$ apiece, or $50 for the knock offs on ebay, but that means 6 pci slots. Not easy, I could use one of the pci extender boxes, but now I am worried about conflicts. Or dialogic analog 4 or 12 port cards for about 1500 to 1800$. :( This is getting expensive. Part of the idea was to save some money. The other part was to use open software as much as possible, and support the FOSS community where ever possible. Here comes the question, wait for it :) Has anyone had success with the dialogic 4 port cards, running 2 of them in a server with * in a buisiness environment as stated above. I am begining to think that I may be better off just going with a proprietary system and cough up the 6K and get it over with. There are a couple of solutions that will share the cat5 cable, that's something. Any ideas? Suggestions? Does anyone know of a solution provider out there who will be able to set this up for me for the 6K the phone system is going to cost me anyway? Michael Rowley MD FP ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. Yeah, so I've heard. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue So the echo problems are not so bad when using software phones? 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. This is specific to the NetJet card once again, right? Time to go hunting for the patch... 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. Hmm, not good. Since we want to run a small IVR the DTMF tones are kinda needed. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. The NetJet is supposedly CAPI capable. Have you tried installing this? -- http://www.junghanns.net/asterisk/page1.html I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( Argh, the fun never stops :) PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. How much do you want for it? If you can confirm whether the capi channel driver works with it and reduces the echo problem, I'll be interested. Thanks for your help. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
Re: these problems with the NetJet Cards: have people spoken with Traverse about them? I have found them to be most helpful with any problems (mainly with the Pulsar PCI ADSL cards) Try talking to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? -Bryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. Yeah, so I've heard. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue So the echo problems are not so bad when using software phones? 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. This is specific to the NetJet card once again, right? Time to go hunting for the patch... 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. Hmm, not good. Since we want to run a small IVR the DTMF tones are kinda needed. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. The NetJet is supposedly CAPI capable. Have you tried installing this? -- http://www.junghanns.net/asterisk/page1.html I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( Argh, the fun never stops :) PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. How much do you want for it? If you can confirm whether the capi channel driver works with it and reduces the echo problem, I'll be interested. Thanks for your help. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
I'll be speaking to Guy tomorrow about this. Guy is certainly a helpful friendly guy and I'm sure he'll be keen to hear about these echo problems. Regards, Gonzalo On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:48, Bryan Nolen wrote: Re: these problems with the NetJet Cards: have people spoken with Traverse about them? I have found them to be most helpful with any problems (mainly with the Pulsar PCI ADSL cards) Try talking to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? -Bryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. Yeah, so I've heard. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue So the echo problems are not so bad when using software phones? 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. This is specific to the NetJet card once again, right? Time to go hunting for the patch... 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. Hmm, not good. Since we want to run a small IVR the DTMF tones are kinda needed. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. The NetJet is supposedly CAPI capable. Have you tried installing this? -- http://www.junghanns.net/asterisk/page1.html I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( Argh, the fun never stops :) PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. How much do you want for it? If you can confirm whether the capi channel driver works with it and reduces the echo problem, I'll be interested. Thanks for your help. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- = WEBTASTIC ABN 30 087 960 619 PO Box 3024 Willoughby North, NSW, 2068 Phone: +61 (02) 9499 2452 Fax: +61 (02) 9499 2618 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.webtastic.com.au = ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
Hello, Inbound dtmf works without patches but you do here tones now and again which is annoying. Echo can be bad, I think it has to do with analogue phone lines at other end, mobile and digital calls seem to be okay from what I have seen. As for outbound DTMF, the ISDN driver does not generate tones but it does send it out of band. So if the other side accepts the out of band dtmf it works. I have for example found that calling Telstra does not work however calling a small ISP in sydney did. As for capi, am hoping to get access to capi cards soon. Regards, Matthew Enger [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: You mentioned echo problems with the NetJet cards. Is this still the case or was it last time you tried that it that had echo problems? I did a Google search and didn't find much on the echo problems with them. Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. Regards, Adam ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Matthew Enger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xintegration ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
Hello, Let us know how you go, be better if one person contacts him then all of us:) Thanks, Matthew Enger [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 01:10, Gonzalo Servat wrote: I'll be speaking to Guy tomorrow about this. Guy is certainly a helpful friendly guy and I'm sure he'll be keen to hear about these echo problems. Regards, Gonzalo On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:48, Bryan Nolen wrote: Re: these problems with the NetJet Cards: have people spoken with Traverse about them? I have found them to be most helpful with any problems (mainly with the Pulsar PCI ADSL cards) Try talking to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? -Bryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. Yeah, so I've heard. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue So the echo problems are not so bad when using software phones? 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. This is specific to the NetJet card once again, right? Time to go hunting for the patch... 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. Hmm, not good. Since we want to run a small IVR the DTMF tones are kinda needed. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. The NetJet is supposedly CAPI capable. Have you tried installing this? -- http://www.junghanns.net/asterisk/page1.html I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( Argh, the fun never stops :) PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. How much do you want for it? If you can confirm whether the capi channel driver works with it and reduces the echo problem, I'll be interested. Thanks for your help. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Matthew Enger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xintegration ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
I've spoken to Guy. I suggested he takes a look at: http://www.junghanns.net .. for the CAPI Channel driver, but after speaking to a few more people I began to understand how they all link together and the CAPI channel driver is not going to help. He knows about the echo problems now so the ball is in his court. As I understand it, there needs to be some Linux CAPI drivers written for the NetJet otherwise the only way to use the card is with isdn4linux. Correct? Regards, Gonzalo On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 14:03, Matthew Enger wrote: Hello, Let us know how you go, be better if one person contacts him then all of us:) Thanks, Matthew Enger [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 01:10, Gonzalo Servat wrote: I'll be speaking to Guy tomorrow about this. Guy is certainly a helpful friendly guy and I'm sure he'll be keen to hear about these echo problems. Regards, Gonzalo On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:48, Bryan Nolen wrote: Re: these problems with the NetJet Cards: have people spoken with Traverse about them? I have found them to be most helpful with any problems (mainly with the Pulsar PCI ADSL cards) Try talking to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? -Bryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote: Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before going live. Yeah, so I've heard. A couple of points to note: 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue So the echo problems are not so bad when using software phones? 2) A faster CPU seems to help (I upgraded from a PII300 to a Athlon 2200) 3) When dialling in/out over the ISDN DTMF won't work (at least I haven't seen the patch which purportedly allows it to work) when you use the isdn4linux patch. This is specific to the NetJet card once again, right? Time to go hunting for the patch... 4) Without the above kernel patch you will hear DTMF tones instead of the other persons voice when they talk. They don't hear the tones or notice anything wrong. Hmm, not good. Since we want to run a small IVR the DTMF tones are kinda needed. In short, if you can live with the above problems, then you can get away with it, from what I know now, I would suggest getting a chan_capi capable device, though I haven't tried that yet. The NetJet is supposedly CAPI capable. Have you tried installing this? -- http://www.junghanns.net/asterisk/page1.html I am about to switch from a netjet card to a TE4xxP card as soon as possible, I have a OnRamp 10 being installed tomorrow. This is largely to increase the number of incoming lines, but partly to resolve the above issues, and also partly to try to resolve long running reliability issues which may in fact be related to the TDM400P anyway. In which case I will be looking for a T1 channel bank some time soon :( Argh, the fun never stops :) PS, I have a brand new Traverse Netjet card available (it was to be used for a dial-up ISDN internet account) which is no longer needed. How much do you want for it? If you can confirm whether the capi channel driver works with it and reduces the echo problem, I'll be interested. Thanks for your help. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- = WEBTASTIC ABN 30 087 960 619 PO Box 3024 Willoughby North, NSW, 2068 Phone: +61 (02) 9499 2452 Fax: +61 (02) 9499 2618 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.webtastic.com.au = ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:13:09PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote: Hi All, This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times, so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My question is: all legalities aside - is anyone using a FXO card in Australia successfully? I have spoken to a number of Australian users who are successfully using: X100P NetJet (echo issues) AVM Fritz!Card I hope to add myself to their number shortly, since we have recieved our Fritz!es Also [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be having some success with the VoiceTronix openline4. All these cards are legal except the X100P. cheers, Woody PS: You are a SLUG member, no? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
The answer is yes. Peter At 12:13 17/11/03 +1100, you wrote: Hi All, This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times, so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My question is: all legalities aside - is anyone using a FXO card in Australia successfully? Thanks in advance. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
I am sure that others have used it directly... I have used it indirectly hanging off PABX extensions and even tested them on emulators... not a problem... The x100p in their current form will never pass a-tick and even c-tick might be questionable. The CE version of the card I have never seen and seeing it uses a slightly different chipset it would probably need software adjustments.. The standard veriosn has a CE symbol on it but that doesn't mean anything as only fcc details are there... If anyone has a CE version and tried it, maybe something can be done, but then I think the CE is maybe just a furfy :-) Gary. PS: PLEASE dont ask me more, I have wasted enough time on it in the past. On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:13:09 +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote: Hi All, This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times, so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My question is: all legalities aside - is anyone using a FXO card in Australia successfully? Thanks in advance. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 12:20, Anthony Wood wrote: I have spoken to a number of Australian users who are successfully using: X100P NetJet (echo issues) AVM Fritz!Card I hope to add myself to their number shortly, since we have recieved our Fritz!es Also [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be having some success with the VoiceTronix openline4. All these cards are legal except the X100P. Thanks very much Anthony. VoiceTronix cards are a little out of my budget, the NatJet AVM cards are for ISDN (and we need standard analogue). PS: You are a SLUG member, no? I'm a SLUG active mailing list user, not a financial member - yet. :) Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:49:40PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote: On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 12:20, Anthony Wood wrote: I have spoken to a number of Australian users who are successfully using: X100P NetJet (echo issues) AVM Fritz!Card I hope to add myself to their number shortly, since we have recieved our Fritz!es Also [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be having some success with the VoiceTronix openline4. All these cards are legal except the X100P. Thanks very much Anthony. VoiceTronix cards are a little out of my budget, the NatJet AVM cards are for ISDN (and we need standard analogue). ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines. The only problem is you can't have ADSL ISDN on the same line. We upgraded from 2 analogue lines to 2 digital (i.e. 4 channels) for $250. But they Telstra'd up the installation so we asked for (and got) the $250 waived. It's worth thinking about it because of the Advantages of Digital signalling when using voice: Know which number was dialed Know callerid early Know when the other end has hung up Better voice quality Using Analogue with Asterisk seems to be filled with Kludges to detect hangups, busy, etc. With ISDN, the exchange does that for you. cheers, Woody ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:00, Anthony Wood wrote: ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines. The only problem is you can't have ADSL ISDN on the same line. We upgraded from 2 analogue lines to 2 digital (i.e. 4 channels) for $250. I was a bit turned off by the $300+ installation cost. I just rang Telstra and its infact $190 if you already have a telephone line, which I do. Awesome! How come you 4 channels if you only have 2 digital lines? I thought it was one channel per line. I was told by the Telstra rep that I need a OnRamp2 which is 2 channels, 2 lines. But they Telstra'd up the installation so we asked for (and got) the $250 waived. Typical (about Telstra'ing the installation, not the setup fee discount!) It's worth thinking about it because of the Advantages of Digital signalling when using voice: Know which number was dialed Know callerid early Know when the other end has hung up Better voice quality Using Analogue with Asterisk seems to be filled with Kludges to detect hangups, busy, etc. With ISDN, the exchange does that for you. Yeah, we're now looking at it again. Local calls are pretty cheap too as long as you don't talk for too long. You mentioned echo problems with the NetJet cards. Is this still the case or was it last time you tried that it that had echo problems? I did a Google search and didn't find much on the echo problems with them. Thanks again for the good info. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
No No sip image for it yet Also is there any way I can change messages and extensions depending on local time ?? Also is there a way to transfer the call over PSTN if the local extension is not answered. Eg to a normal gsm mobile ?? Regards Mick West NetExpress Phone 61 08 82420173 Fax 61 08 82425099 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: Confidentiality: This message contains privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, re-transmit, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please delete the document and notify NetExpress immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of NetExpress. The use of this Email or it's contents in any public place, eg forum, website is strictly prohibited. Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's responsibility. Data Actions' entire liability will be limited to resupplying the material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or any other defect. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Monday, 17 November 2003 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:00, Anthony Wood wrote: ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines. The only problem is you can't have ADSL ISDN on the same line. We upgraded from 2 analogue lines to 2 digital (i.e. 4 channels) for $250. I was a bit turned off by the $300+ installation cost. I just rang Telstra and its infact $190 if you already have a telephone line, which I do. Awesome! How come you 4 channels if you only have 2 digital lines? I thought it was one channel per line. I was told by the Telstra rep that I need a OnRamp2 which is 2 channels, 2 lines. But they Telstra'd up the installation so we asked for (and got) the $250 waived. Typical (about Telstra'ing the installation, not the setup fee discount!) It's worth thinking about it because of the Advantages of Digital signalling when using voice: Know which number was dialed Know callerid early Know when the other end has hung up Better voice quality Using Analogue with Asterisk seems to be filled with Kludges to detect hangups, busy, etc. With ISDN, the exchange does that for you. Yeah, we're now looking at it again. Local calls are pretty cheap too as long as you don't talk for too long. You mentioned echo problems with the NetJet cards. Is this still the case or was it last time you tried that it that had echo problems? I did a Google search and didn't find much on the echo problems with them. Thanks again for the good info. Regards, Gonzalo ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:32:50PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote: On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:00, Anthony Wood wrote: ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines. The only problem is you can't have ADSL ISDN on the same line. We upgraded from 2 analogue lines to 2 digital (i.e. 4 channels) for $250. I was a bit turned off by the $300+ installation cost. I just rang Telstra and its infact $190 if you already have a telephone line, which I do. Awesome! How come you 4 channels if you only have 2 digital lines? I thought it was one channel per line. I was told by the Telstra rep that I need a OnRamp2 which is 2 channels, 2 lines. Yeah OnRamp2 replaces 1 analogue line, so we converted 2 analogue lines to 2 * OnRamp2 i.e. 4 lines. But they Telstra'd up the installation so we asked for (and got) the $250 waived. Typical (about Telstra'ing the installation, not the setup fee discount!) It's worth thinking about it because of the Advantages of Digital signalling when using voice: Know which number was dialed Know callerid early Know when the other end has hung up Better voice quality Using Analogue with Asterisk seems to be filled with Kludges to detect hangups, busy, etc. With ISDN, the exchange does that for you. Yeah, we're now looking at it again. Local calls are pretty cheap too as long as you don't talk for too long. You mentioned echo problems with the NetJet cards. Is this still the case or was it last time you tried that it that had echo problems? I did a Google search and didn't find much on the echo problems with them. There is still the problem, so bad that 4 person business I know stumped up the cash for an ISDN10 PRI install (AU$2000) and a TE410P (AU$3000) to replace a netjet ($250). I have only heard good things about the AVM Fritz!Cards with chan_capi. They are more expensive than the NetJets, but cheaper per line than the Openline4. Thanks again for the good info. I prefer Vanilla Coke to beer. :-) cheers -- Woody ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
