I'm finally convinced my Grandstream HT386 is too much trouble. There's got to be some clever engineering in a device which manages to have a problem with every FS configuration I've tested. What I need now is another dual FXS adapter, one port is for a cordless phone and the other is a dedicated fax line. I'm considering an unlocked Linksys PAP2T, and a Grandstream HT502 but I'm open to other recommendations. The HT502 is only on my list due to UPnP & TLS support and because my GX2020 has always worked well. Both products are available at voipsupply.com for under $60, although I have no fixed price cutoff. -gh
If you want a fax on one line, you plan to use fax over G711 or T38 ? As far as I know, the PAP2T does not have T38. Fax over G711 is known to be quite unreliable. You should look at Audiocodes and Patton. Both of those vendors are known to produce good devices, although I remember someone saying that the analog devices from Audiocodes were not as good as the digital ones. If you really need fax, even T38, you should not have a fixed price cutoff. You should rather try all the boxes on the market, and if you'are lucky enough to find one working with your gateway (not with FS, FS is transparent for that), stay with that and hope the vendor won't stop making it. I was successful with the little M-ATA from Patton (that's actually an OEM) for T38. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr - www.ipeva-studio.com Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur. Le 13/05/2010 à 16:37, Garrison Hoffman a écrit :
I'm finally convinced my Grandstream HT386 is too much trouble. There's got to be some clever engineering in a device which manages to have a problem with every FS configuration I've tested.
What I need now is another dual FXS adapter, one port is for a cordless phone and the other is a dedicated fax line.
I'm considering an unlocked Linksys PAP2T, and a Grandstream HT502 but I'm open to other recommendations. The HT502 is only on my list due to UPnP & TLS support and because my GX2020 has always worked well.
Both products are available at voipsupply.com for under $60, although I have no fixed price cutoff.
-gh
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
First let me thank all the respondents from my original related post, here is some follow up information which may be useful for anyone considering similar choices. I went with a Patton SL4022 which arrived defective, Patton's response was slow but they seem willing to replace the unit. I'm currently trying to see if the vendor will allow me to exchange the unit for a similar one made by Audiocodes. I got the impression that Audiocodes has better product support, which is something I weight heavily in my evaluations. I'd like to know if anyone has an experience with these manufacturer's product support he'd like to share, but I wouldn't consider other makers off topic-- this surely won't be my last VoIP purchase. -gh
SPA2102 http://www.voipsupply.com/spa-2102 Has T.38 support too. -----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Garrison Hoffman Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:38 AM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Recommendations for adapter replacement ... I'm finally convinced my Grandstream HT386 is too much trouble. There's got to be some clever engineering in a device which manages to have a problem with every FS configuration I've tested. What I need now is another dual FXS adapter, one port is for a cordless phone and the other is a dedicated fax line. I'm considering an unlocked Linksys PAP2T, and a Grandstream HT502 but I'm open to other recommendations. The HT502 is only on my list due to UPnP & TLS support and because my GX2020 has always worked well. Both products are available at voipsupply.com for under $60, although I have no fixed price cutoff. -gh _______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Thank you, Peder and David. I honestly haven't worried much about the fax, we don't use it much and LAN load is light, but I just read a bit and T38 relay sounds promising. I have to say I'm a bit wary of VoIP vendors who don't do on-line ordering, but Patton's SmartLink 4020 has piqued my interest and I'll check them out. Naturally I'll be comparing them against Peder's recommendation of the SPA2102, which has moved to the top of my list (at least until I can get price info from Patton). Incidentally, switching from specifying a NAT IP to STUN seems to have helped (even though it gets the same IP), but I won't consider it a valid test until it sits overnight. In any case T.38 support is sufficient reason to upgrade. -gh P.S. Bonus points if someone can direct me to something which explains why moving FS off my local LAN means I have to register each extension using a different SIP port. I suspect it was doing NAT traversal with neither STUN nor UPnP but I don't know enough to definitively rule out my FS config.
Naturally I'll be comparing them against Peder's recommendation of the SPA2102, which has moved to the top of my list (at least until I can get price info from Patton).
Buddy, my experience is that device works well for fax, but voice is bad on it. It echoes like hell and support is what you expect from a consumer grade product...
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:55 +0000, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
Naturally I'll be comparing them against Peder's recommendation of the SPA2102, which has moved to the top of my list (at least until I can get price info from Patton).
Buddy, my experience is that device works well for fax, but voice is bad on it. It echoes like hell and support is what you expect from a consumer grade product...
Well, it's a dynamic list :-D I have enough experience with Linksys/Cisco routers that I had some hesitation even as I wrote that, meanwhile I've discovered that my preferred vendor apparently sells Patton and I'm seriously considering http://www.voipsupply.com/sl4022 T.38 isn't listed there but is on Patton's site. There's an obvious bias on this list against, as you say, consumer grade products, which often work fine within limited parameters, but I'm finding that when it comes to VoIP hardware those limitations are more frequently exceeding my tolerance. In other words, a 100% difference in price counts for less than a 50% difference in the amount of time I need to spend getting it to work. -gh
On 05/14/2010 01:55 AM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
Naturally I'll be comparing them against Peder's recommendation of the SPA2102, which has moved to the top of my list (at least until I can get price info from Patton).
Buddy, my experience is that device works well for fax, but voice is bad on it. It echoes like hell and support is what you expect from a consumer grade product...
The SPA3102 has serious echo problems with its PSTN port, but its FXS port and the SPA2102 don't seem to give people echo problems. FAX, on the other hand, can be a problem with the SPA2102 and SPA3102. Their T.38 implementation is quirky, and often fails when the lead from the ATA to the FAX machine is short (say 1m to 2m). A longer lead usually solves this. I have no idea of the cause. Steve
Garrison, just to be sure: does your device set rport in the INVITE ? If not, it could explain your issue, and you could force that by using force-rport in the SIP profile. Bonus: I dont think you need to do that. If your FS is out of your local LAN, and using public IP, you can register as many devices on your local LAN without doing anything special. The only thing is that FS does some magic to guess that a device is behind NAT (based on the IPs in the INVITE, on the presence of rport in the Via field, etc...), and sometimes, the magic is not powerful enough (if rport is not there for example). Using force-rport can help. To check if FS sees a device correctly behind NAT, check the sofia_contact (sofia status profile <profile name> shows that for all registered devices). You should see fs_nat=yes and fs_path should contain the right way to reach the device (with public Ip and public port). David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr - www.ipeva-studio.com Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur. Le 13/05/2010 à 19:32, Garrison Hoffman a écrit :
Thank you, Peder and David.
I honestly haven't worried much about the fax, we don't use it much and LAN load is light, but I just read a bit and T38 relay sounds promising.
I have to say I'm a bit wary of VoIP vendors who don't do on-line ordering, but Patton's SmartLink 4020 has piqued my interest and I'll check them out. Naturally I'll be comparing them against Peder's recommendation of the SPA2102, which has moved to the top of my list (at least until I can get price info from Patton).
Incidentally, switching from specifying a NAT IP to STUN seems to have helped (even though it gets the same IP), but I won't consider it a valid test until it sits overnight. In any case T.38 support is sufficient reason to upgrade.
-gh
P.S. Bonus points if someone can direct me to something which explains why moving FS off my local LAN means I have to register each extension using a different SIP port. I suspect it was doing NAT traversal with neither STUN nor UPnP but I don't know enough to definitively rule out my FS config.
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 20:42 +0200, David Ponzone wrote:
just to be sure: does your device set rport in the INVITE ?
Never mind, I was an idiot. Trying to address more than one issue at a time got me horribly confused; I seem to have been thinking that I could rout the same public IP:Port to two different internal devices without doing anything special. What amuses me now is that the configuration worked slightly, but only for whichever device was favored by my local router (or most recently in it's packet queue). All is well now (except that I'm occasionally accused of having a Sonus). I do still plan to get a new ATA, probably the Patton SmartLink 4022. -gh
D'oh! I just realized VoipSupply sells Patton products. Kindly disregard my unsightly ignorance. -gh
participants (5)
-
David Ponzone
-
Garrison Hoffman
-
Joseph L. Casale
-
Peder
-
Steve Underwood