[Asterisk-Dev] Is there a need for a DS3 channel/driver?

[John Todd]

At 7:55 AM -0500 on 11/21/04, Mike M wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:42:50PM -0500, John Todd wrote:
>[snip]
>  > 5)
>>    SS7:
>>  FAS PRI is where I
>>  would see this working first, and then ISUP eventually.
>
>(+1)^10
>
>1) FAS
>2) NFAS (It exists in *, right?)

Yes, NFAS does exist in * (though I haven't tried it yet.)

>3) Native ISUP; loadable modules so the flavor of the region is
>    accomodated
>
>    ss7net=====s/g---ip------*------n X IMT----------pstn
>                +
>	       |
>	       +----ip------*------n X IMT----------pstn
>                +
>	       |
>	       +----ip------*------n X IMT----------pstn
>                +
>	       |
>	       +----ip------*------n X IMT----------pstn
>
>>  6)
>>    I've said before, and I'll say again: most of the biggest users of
>>  Asterisk never appear on this forum.  They never say anything.
>
>I know of some.  Users != Developers (in a fuzzy logic context).

True.  However, the people talking about (and sometimes using) 
Asterisk on very large scales often keep quiet, for reasons I outline 
in another thread.  There are always exceptions.  When is the last 
time you saw someone from one of the four big US-based ILECs post to 
either list (and acknowledge their employer)?  Do you think they're 
not using Asterisk?  Do you think that their contributions, if they 
were "allowed" or willing to contribute, would be a benefit to the 
community?  A large or a small benefit?  I know you're not arguing 
with me on this topic, but I am sad sometimes when I see the amount 
of effort put into Asterisk that never sees the light of day due to 
reasons that are so often purely administrative confusion or 
pig-headedness.  There are also a few enlightened firms, as well, 
which contribute back to the CVS in anonymous ways.  But I fear that 
that number has dwindled in the last year.


>  >   IBM: I'm waiting.  Step up to the plate, guys - this, along with
>>  many other Asterisk improvements, is where you could make a
>>  difference in telco-grade Linux. 
>
>IBM knows telecom is still consolidating as an industry, and IBM is not
>known for circuit switching or VoIP, so it's a low ROI business 
>sector for them
>(IMHO).  Why not ask though?
>
>They have supported lksctp generously by donating good people to the
>project (leaders have had ibm.com in their email addresses for quite 
>some time).
>SCTP will be essential for integrating signal gateways with Asterisk.
>
>--
>Michael Mueller

Sorry - I wasn't indicating that IBM was holding out on us or 
anything.  That was a separate thread idea, and I apologize if 
contextually it seemed like I was accusing IBM of something.  IBM has 
been very helpful to Open Source, but I just think that someone needs 
to kick them into gear on Asterisk - it's a big opportunity for them 
to own one of the last expensive boxes in the typical office that 
isn't a "generic" computer.

Telecom is consolidating, that is certain.  It's clear that the 
consolidation is around VoIP, both at the edges and at the core. 
It's also clear that the consolidation is eschewing custom hardware 
as the method to make money - it's now a software question.  IBM, 
while a hardware vendor, can recognize good revenue if they were to 
build or shift some resources into Asterisk and wrap more stuff into 
the project and then sell it as a "kit", just like they're doing with 
other open-source projects.  This project, however, has an extremely 
broad appeal for small-to-midsized offices that are looking at 
reducing costs and increasing features by using VoIP systems.

This is moving very quickly away from the -dev discussion charter, so 
this will be my last public post on this thread.

JT