Steve Totaro wrote:
I understand you are a developer and you want IAX2 to be great.
That is your job, but the fact is that it is not and has caused
audio and security problems for YEARS in EVERY release. It
should bug you and everyone at Digium that waves the IAX2
flag.
Can you elaborate on
Roger Marquis wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I understand you are a developer and you want IAX2 to be great.
That is your job, but the fact is that it is not and has caused
audio and security problems for YEARS in EVERY release. It
should bug you and everyone at Digium that waves the IAX2
Jon Pounder wrote:
This sounds like a bunch of gobbledegook spewed out by those very high
end firewall vendors. Call it what you want but anything that processes
packets in any way and makes a decision on what to do is by definition a
CPU.
You won't find much support for that opinion in
Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com writes:
ASICs are particularly critical to latency-sensitive protocols and those
using small packet sizes with correspondingly high packet counts.
According to Praveen Kumar (Founder/CEO of Packet Island) the ASIC
differential is even more noticeable with
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the
SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with
IAX going through my Sonicwall devices.
I've had nothing but issues with sonicwalls on both the IAX2 and SIP side of
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 19:20:00 Steve Totaro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote:
It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are
getting an IAX error at this time on another connection
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tilghman Lesher
tilgh...@mail.jeffandtilghman.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 19:20:00 Steve Totaro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote:
It was probably Voice pulse that
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the
problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX
protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are discontinuing
support for IAX.
Is this correct? We are all heading for SIP?
hello,
(if this is correct):
IAX is no maintained now
but IAX2 is maintained by the Asterisk Developers Team
(i'm not sur) please si other responces
thanks
OCG Technical Support a écrit :
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca)
blamed the problem on the IAX protocol.
OCG Technical Support wrote:
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed
the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4
the IAX protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are
discontinuing support for IAX.
Is this
Side note and very telling. IAX.cc (Vitelity now) advised against
using IAX a long time ago.
That would be the same as CiscoGear.com advising to not use Cisco but 3Com.
Thanks,
Steve
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:04 AM, OCG Technical Support supp...@ocg.ca wrote:
After a variety of connectivity
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak
m...@avtechpulse.com wrote:
OCG Technical Support wrote:
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed
the problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4
the IAX protocol went downhill and
The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the
SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with
IAX going through my Sonicwall devices.
Just another datapoint for you...
Just curious.
Since IAX only uses ONE port, do you have any idea what the
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:04 AM, OCG Technical Support supp...@ocg.ca wrote:
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the
problem on the IAX protocol. They told me that as of Asterisk 1.4 the IAX
protocol went downhill and many carriers (like VoicePulse) are
...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of OCG Technical
Support
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:05 AM
To: 'Asterisk Users List'
Subject: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
After a variety of connectivity problems, my itsp (Unlimitel.ca) blamed the
problem on the IAX protocol. They told me
: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
The choice of router/NAT is critical though. Unlimitel recommended the
SnapGear 560 to me, and it eliminated all the issues I was having with
IAX going through my Sonicwall devices.
Just another datapoint for you...
Just curious.
Since IAX
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 09:59:27 OCG Technical Support wrote:
I use simple port forwarding on an Linux firewall (iptables)...so that's
not the issue.
I was referring to IAX2 of course (IAX has be gone a long time I think)...
Unlimitel is running * 1.4.x (and so am I)...
I just can't
-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Tilghman
Lesher
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] ITSP's no longer supporting IAX?
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 09:59:27 OCG Technical Support wrote:
I use simple port
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote:
It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are
getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it.
The error is:
[Mar 25 05:46:16] WARNING[5102]: chan_iax2.c:1056 __send_lagrq: I was
supposed
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tilghman Lesher
tilgh...@mail.jeffandtilghman.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:45:59 Cary Fitch wrote:
It was probably Voice pulse that suggested we not use IAX, and we are
getting an IAX error at this time on another connection where we do use it.
The
Steve Totaro wrote:
IAX2 has been a lemon since it's inception. Sure, some people have
success. It seems to work OK for IAXModem.
I chose to use IAX2 in developing IAXmodem because IAX2 is relatively
simple compared to SIP and because at the time I didn't know of any
easy-to-use SIP
21 matches
Mail list logo
