We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff
Fax never works well over IP but if you have the customer reduce the fax machine's baud rate to 9600 (if capable) it has more consistent results....we always propose our desktop fax solution as a replacement or have them keep it as a POTS line to be shared with alarm/modem/cr card/fax...this also gives them a disaster line in the event of no IP or power, they can plug in any old SLT phone to make an emergency call. Todd Wolf President / COO Office 207.591.6900 Direct: 207.591.6902 Fax: 207.591.6919 twolf at voipnettechnologies.com www.voipnettechnologies.com * * * * * P Save Paper - Do you really need to print this e-mail? Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, may contain confidential and privileged information and is for the SOLE use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and/or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy/delete all copies of the original message. ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Anderson Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff
Connect the FAX to an analog port on the TA900. Disable echo cancellation, alc, plc, nls, and lower tx/rx gain as far as it will go. You shouldn't need T.38 on a T1 with QoS enabled and no public Internet. Disable any (super)G3 capabilities in the fax machine. On 12/15/2010 4:53 PM, Jeff Anderson wrote:
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter.
I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Lee Riemer Director of Technical Operations Bestline Communications, L.P. Voice: 1+512.328.9095 Fax: 1+512.328.0038
We are using this successfully on Adtran TA900 series analog ports. Not even doing anything special configs. It just works. I tried using other solutions such as the LINKSYS/CISCO ATA and Handytone with/without T.38 and it just is not reliable. For some reason the Adtran TA900 seems to work (no T.38) consistently. Not sure what they figured out here, but no complaints for over 2 years. There is an ATA device called FaxxBochs that works over IP, but it is expensive and I believe you pay a monthly fee. Jim From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Lee Riemer Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:21 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP Connect the FAX to an analog port on the TA900. Disable echo cancellation, alc, plc, nls, and lower tx/rx gain as far as it will go. You shouldn't need T.38 on a T1 with QoS enabled and no public Internet. Disable any (super)G3 capabilities in the fax machine. On 12/15/2010 4:53 PM, Jeff Anderson wrote: We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Lee Riemer Director of Technical Operations Bestline Communications, L.P. Voice: 1+512.328.9095 Fax: 1+512.328.0038
This is a topic that has been very near and dear to my ulcers for the last few months. Not necessarily with the Adtran TA900 but with any residential class ATA as we endeavor to improve the fax experience across our network as a whole. What I've learned so far: 1: If you control the entire path, pass-through works just as well as T.38, if you don't, T.38 end to end is the only way to fly. 2: Linksys/CISCO are the best behaved ATA's when it comes to fax 3: g711 pass-through seems to work best at 9600 baud with the bells and whistles turned off and your fax machine as lobotomized as possible 4: T.38 seems to work best with the fax machine left alone at 14.4 5: Most of the big breakdowns occur between the fax machine and the FXS/SLIC. Strange byes, local CNG not detected, etc etc. If anyone has any pearls of wisdom to chime in with I am all ears. -anorexicpoodle On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:46 -0800, Jim Gurol wrote:
We are using this successfully on Adtran TA900 series analog ports. Not even doing anything special configs. It just works.
I tried using other solutions such as the LINKSYS/CISCO ATA and Handytone with/without T.38 and it just is not reliable.
For some reason the Adtran TA900 seems to work (no T.38) consistently. Not sure what they figured out here, but no complaints for over 2 years.
There is an ATA device called FaxxBochs that works over IP, but it is expensive and I believe you pay a monthly fee.
Jim
From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Lee Riemer Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:21 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
Connect the FAX to an analog port on the TA900. Disable echo cancellation, alc, plc, nls, and lower tx/rx gain as far as it will go. You shouldn't need T.38 on a T1 with QoS enabled and no public Internet. Disable any (super)G3 capabilities in the fax machine.
On 12/15/2010 4:53 PM, Jeff Anderson wrote:
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter.
I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Lee Riemer Director of Technical Operations Bestline Communications, L.P. Voice: 1+512.328.9095 Fax: 1+512.328.0038
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
The whole connection has to be SIP with hardly any conversion. So if it G.711 from the customer premise it has to stay G.711 all the way to the other fax machine. It has to be end-to-end. It breaks down when there is a lot of A/D conversion. On 12/15/2010 5:53 PM, Jeff Anderson wrote:
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter.
I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
The TA900s and 2431s will handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two things. One you use point to point circuits between you and the IAD. The other thing is avoid sending these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the internet. We use a combination of PRIs for local and SIP trunks for LD. We route the "data lines" so that their local and ld go out their closest PRI. If the customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they are offnet we won't support any kind of data calls. Richey From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Anderson Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff
This discussion is just at the surface. If you talk about fax over IP, then you should include the T.38 version, and there are 6 versions so far (T.38 v0 to v5). The majority of deployed ATA's seems to use T.38 v0 from year 1998, which is an issue. The latest one is T.38 v5 (09/2010). If you talk about G.711 pass-through, then you should again discriminate between a) V.152 VBDoIP with G.711 as VBD codec and b) pseudo-VBDoIP using G.711. The first one has a clear indication as VBD codec in the signalling plane (like SIP, H.248, H.323, etc), which allows to distinguish G.711 as audio codec and G.711 in VBD mode. The second one is just a mess ("G.711 pass-through") due to the merge of audio with VBD (... and different media configurations). All the requirements for FoIP and VBDoIP are e.g. summarized by ETSI TR 183 072 V3.1.1 (2010-09), Emulation Services for PSTN Modem Calls. Which talks also about the interop issue. And one root cause are just different T.38 implementations ... Thus, any constructive discussion should address also that level of detail. Regards, Albrecht ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 04:53 To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP The TA900s and 2431s will handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two things. One you use point to point circuits between you and the IAD. The other thing is avoid sending these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the internet. We use a combination of PRIs for local and SIP trunks for LD. We route the "data lines" so that their local and ld go out their closest PRI. If the customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they are offnet we won't support any kind of data calls. Richey From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Anderson Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff
Can you list some devices that use the other versions and standards you mention? On 12/15/2010 11:46 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
This discussion is just at the surface. If you talk about fax over IP, then you should include the T.38 version, and there are 6 versions so far (T.38 v0 to v5). The majority of deployed ATA's seems to use T.38 v0 from year 1998, which is an issue. The latest one is T.38 v5 (09/2010). If you talk about G.711 pass-through, then you should again discriminate between a) V.152 VBDoIP with G.711 as VBD codec and b) pseudo-VBDoIP using G.711. The first one has a clear indication as VBD codec in the signalling plane (like SIP, H.248, H.323, etc), which allows to distinguish G.711 as audio codec and G.711 in VBD mode. The second one is just a mess ("G.711 pass-through") due to the merge of audio with VBD (... and different media configurations). All the requirements for FoIP and VBDoIP are e.g. summarized by *ETSI TR 183 072 V3.1.1 (2010-09), *Emulation Services for PSTN Modem Calls. Which talks also about the interop issue. And one root cause are just different T.38 implementations ... Thus, any constructive discussion should address also that level of detail. Regards, Albrecht
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Richey *Sent:* Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 04:53 *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
The TA900s and 2431s will handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two things. One you use point to point circuits between you and the IAD. The other thing is avoid sending these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the internet. We use a combination of PRIs for local and SIP trunks for LD. We route the "data lines" so that their local and ld go out their closest PRI. If the customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they are offnet we won't support any kind of data calls.
Richey
*From:*voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Anderson *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter.
I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
The discussion of interoperability issues concerning fax/modem in particular and PSTN X/modem calls in general was already topic in the past two years in the correspondent experts groups, like - ITU-T Q.14/16 - SIP Forum FoIP Task Force - ANSI TR 30.1 - ETSI TISPAN WG3 - i3 Forum - MSF TC meeting and - IETF MMUSIC (concerning the usage of revised SDP Offer/Answer in SIP for T.38, V.152). There isn't much value in repeating the same discussions in other groups again. Starting point for product implementations is to point out their standard compliance primarily against the recommendations by the correspondent technology owners, i.e. ITU-T Q.14/16 in case of T.38 and V.152 and IETF MMUSIC in case of SDP O/A (via SIP). NGN / IMS compliant products on top must refer to 3GPP, ETSI TISPAN, etc standards. ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Lee Riemer Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 16:01 To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP Can you list some devices that use the other versions and standards you mention? On 12/15/2010 11:46 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote: This discussion is just at the surface. If you talk about fax over IP, then you should include the T.38 version, and there are 6 versions so far (T.38 v0 to v5). The majority of deployed ATA's seems to use T.38 v0 from year 1998, which is an issue. The latest one is T.38 v5 (09/2010). If you talk about G.711 pass-through, then you should again discriminate between a) V.152 VBDoIP with G.711 as VBD codec and b) pseudo-VBDoIP using G.711. The first one has a clear indication as VBD codec in the signalling plane (like SIP, H.248, H.323, etc), which allows to distinguish G.711 as audio codec and G.711 in VBD mode. The second one is just a mess ("G.711 pass-through") due to the merge of audio with VBD (... and different media configurations). All the requirements for FoIP and VBDoIP are e.g. summarized by ETSI TR 183 072 V3.1.1 (2010-09), Emulation Services for PSTN Modem Calls. Which talks also about the interop issue. And one root cause are just different T.38 implementations ... Thus, any constructive discussion should address also that level of detail. Regards, Albrecht ________________________________ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 04:53 To: voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP The TA900s and 2431s will handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two things. One you use point to point circuits between you and the IAD. The other thing is avoid sending these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the internet. We use a combination of PRIs for local and SIP trunks for LD. We route the "data lines" so that their local and ld go out their closest PRI. If the customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they are offnet we won't support any kind of data calls. Richey From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Anderson Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems. We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter. I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Whoa, slow down there. You mentioned "the majority of deployed ATAs seems to use T.38 v0...". I simply asked what devices you knew used the newer standards. The reason no one is talking about it at the level you are requesting, is because most of us probably have not heard of them. We are in the trenches using readily available equipment, and if in the configuration of those devices requires us to match versions of the protocols you are describing, then we would include our experiences in this discussion. The thread owner stated two devices, and we replied with our experience in those. We do not make the standards, we make them work. On 12/16/2010 10:32 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
The discussion of interoperability issues concerning fax/modem in particular and PSTN X/modem calls in general was already topic in the past two years in the correspondent experts groups, like - ITU-T Q.14/16 - SIP Forum FoIP Task Force - ANSI TR 30.1 - ETSI TISPAN WG3 - i3 Forum - MSF TC meeting and - IETF MMUSIC (concerning the usage of revised SDP Offer/Answer in SIP for T.38, V.152). There isn't much value in repeating the same discussions in other groups again. Starting point for product implementations is to point out their standard compliance primarily against the recommendations by the correspondent technology owners, i.e. ITU-T Q.14/16 in case of T.38 and V.152 and IETF MMUSIC in case of SDP O/A (via SIP). NGN / IMS compliant products on top must refer to 3GPP, ETSI TISPAN, etc standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee Riemer *Sent:* Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 16:01 *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
Can you list some devices that use the other versions and standards you mention?
On 12/15/2010 11:46 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
This discussion is just at the surface. If you talk about fax over IP, then you should include the T.38 version, and there are 6 versions so far (T.38 v0 to v5). The majority of deployed ATA's seems to use T.38 v0 from year 1998, which is an issue. The latest one is T.38 v5 (09/2010). If you talk about G.711 pass-through, then you should again discriminate between a) V.152 VBDoIP with G.711 as VBD codec and b) pseudo-VBDoIP using G.711. The first one has a clear indication as VBD codec in the signalling plane (like SIP, H.248, H.323, etc), which allows to distinguish G.711 as audio codec and G.711 in VBD mode. The second one is just a mess ("G.711 pass-through") due to the merge of audio with VBD (... and different media configurations). All the requirements for FoIP and VBDoIP are e.g. summarized by *ETSI TR 183 072 V3.1.1 (2010-09), *Emulation Services for PSTN Modem Calls. Which talks also about the interop issue. And one root cause are just different T.38 implementations ... Thus, any constructive discussion should address also that level of detail. Regards, Albrecht
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Richey *Sent:* Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 04:53 *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
The TA900s and 2431s will handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two things. One you use point to point circuits between you and the IAD. The other thing is avoid sending these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the internet. We use a combination of PRIs for local and SIP trunks for LD. We route the "data lines" so that their local and ld go out their closest PRI. If the customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they are offnet we won't support any kind of data calls.
Richey
*From:*voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Anderson *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM *To:* voiceops at voiceops.org *Subject:* [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We can force a slower speed, disable error correction, disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any network drops or jitter.
I was wondering if others who have experience with faxing over IP could share what they have learned works best or anything else that may be helpful.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Lee Riemer Director of Technical Operations Bestline Communications, L.P. Voice: 1+512.328.9095 Fax: 1+512.328.0038
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 04:53:54PM -0600, Jeff Anderson wrote:
We are experiencing a fair amount of heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic T1 product. Some customers it works great and others have frequent problems.
A little dated, but decent: http://www.soft-switch.org/foip.html As you've seen -- it *can* work. But the heartache and pain is unbelievable in the real world when you can't control the entire conversation (both FAX machines *AND* the network between them). Part of it lies in the speeds the FAXes try to negotiate over a G.711 link. If you can convince people to set their FAXes to 9600, you'll get better results. Another issue is that FAXes send image info inside a continuous signal envelope -- if there is any interruption (lost packets), they drop the connection. You don't just lose part of the image, you lose the rest of the transmission. Other issues crop up as well -- but speed and minor interruptions are the big killers of FAX. T.38 should help -- by terminating the envelope in the ATA, then transporting the image info packetized, and rebuilding an envelope at the other end -- but the myriad of T.38 implementations/versions make it difficult to trust that it will work. In my former life, we did as many here suggest -- get a POTS line for people that *must* have FAX/Modems running. They'll thank you in the long run.
Can someone enlighten me as to the 3 in 1 ruling and the impacts on reciprocal compensation amounts? On or off thread is ok. Steve
If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable. Steve
You should probably also take a look at Metaswitch, they fit very well into the Residential market (amongst others) and can scale very well. Building is possible but you'll need a lot more dev staff and time. Also you'd have to bring in another vendor to handle the SS7 side of things and then try to integrate. -Scott From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Steven Putnam Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 2:27 PM To: Voice Operators Subject: [VoiceOps] Scalable VoIP Feature Server for Whitelabeling If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable. Steve
First of: WHY would you want to go into Consumer VoIP? There are a bunch of folks in this space already - Skype, Vonage, Magicjack, RingCentral, Phone.com. Even Packet8 got out of consumer VoIP to focus on B2B. Remember, deltathree? one of the original VoIP companies: bankrupt. Stratus Telecom is the platform that MagicJack uses. Metaswitch is another consumer VoIP platform. It all depends on what you are after: cheap, features, some special widget. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Specialist 813.963.5884 fax 866.575.9446 http://www.rad-info.net/contact.htm On 12/27/2010 2:27 PM, Steven Putnam wrote:
If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable.
Steve
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
We aren't looking to go into that business themselves on the retail side. We have VoIP Providers (our customers) who want a managed service instead of just DIDs and origination minutes. Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:32:19 -0500 From: peter at 4isps.com To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Scalable VoIP Feature Server for Whitelabeling First of: WHY would you want to go into Consumer VoIP? There are a bunch of folks in this space already - Skype, Vonage, Magicjack, RingCentral, Phone.com. Even Packet8 got out of consumer VoIP to focus on B2B. Remember, deltathree? one of the original VoIP companies: bankrupt. Stratus Telecom is the platform that MagicJack uses. Metaswitch is another consumer VoIP platform. It all depends on what you are after: cheap, features, some special widget. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Specialist 813.963.5884 fax 866.575.9446 http://www.rad-info.net/contact.htm On 12/27/2010 2:27 PM, Steven Putnam wrote: If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable. Steve _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Sure. They want to cut costs to some day make a profit on resi voip. some day. On 12/27/2010 3:38 PM, Steven Putnam wrote:
We aren't looking to go into that business themselves on the retail side. We have VoIP Providers (our customers) who want a managed service instead of just DIDs and origination minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:32:19 -0500 From: peter at 4isps.com To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Scalable VoIP Feature Server for Whitelabeling
First of: WHY would you want to go into Consumer VoIP? There are a bunch of folks in this space already - Skype, Vonage, Magicjack, RingCentral, Phone.com. Even Packet8 got out of consumer VoIP to focus on B2B. Remember, deltathree? one of the original VoIP companies: bankrupt.
Stratus Telecom is the platform that MagicJack uses.
Metaswitch is another consumer VoIP platform.
It all depends on what you are after: cheap, features, some special widget.
Regards,
Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Specialist 813.963.5884 fax 866.575.9446 http://www.rad-info.net/contact.htm
On 12/27/2010 2:27 PM, Steven Putnam wrote:
If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable.
Steve
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
We have been running the ENTICE Platform from Stratus Telecom for both our SBC?s and our feature servers for over two years now. It is pretty easily scaled and offers all your common residential consumer calling features. As Peter mentioned this is the same core platform that the entire ymax/magicjack network is built on top off. The platform is actually built with a focus on whitelabeling and structured/tiered resale depending on what your needs are on the billing side of things. We use some of their billing applications but mainly for their reporting capabilities. If you want more information about it feel free to contact me off list. -- Keith E. LeClaire Jr Technical Operations Manager WDT - World Discount Telecommunications Office: (516) 960-0761 Email: kleclaire at mywdt.com On 12/27/10 2:27 PM, "Steven Putnam" <clechouse at hotmail.com> wrote:
If you were a CLEC and were interested in wholesaling managed VoIP services to the residential VoIP Provider market, what would you recommend for a Feature Server platform? Would you buy versus build, and if you were to buy, what vendors are the best bang for the buck in this niche? We are not looking for expensive enterprise-centric solutions from Broadsoft and Sonus, unless there are no more viable alternatives; for a commodity such as residential VoIP, cost is very much a concern, but it must also be massively scalable.
Steve
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (12)
-
albrecht.schwarz＠alcatel-lucent.com -
anorexicpoodle＠gmail.com -
ciscoplumber＠gmail.com -
clechouse＠hotmail.com -
jim＠californiatelecom.com -
josmon＠rigozsaurus.com -
kleclaire＠mywdt.com -
lriemer＠bestline.net -
mylists＠battleop.com -
peter＠4isps.com -
scott＠sberkman.net -
twolf＠voipnettechnologies.com