[asterisk-dev] Loop start vs kewl start for T1 interface

[Justin Killen]

I guess that makes sense.  I think it's a little inconsistent with the way in which certain flags are specified as a different protocol when really it's just an 'extra' on top of the standard.  For example, loopstart + battery drop = fxo_ks, but loopstart + polarity switch = fxo_ls and set hanguponpolarityswitch option.  It seems that perhaps instead of having an fxo_ks, there should just be a hanguponbatterydrop option.

I realize this would probably be a headache for migration, but it would be easy enough to parse out and support fxo_ks for a few releases.

 
-Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Tilghman Lesher
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] Loop start vs kewl start for T1 interface

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Justin Killen
<jkillen at allamericanasphalt.com> wrote:
> Is there a doc somewhere that explains when to use loop start vs. kewl start
> in certain situations? I've seen in a lot of posts that most people just say
> 'use kewl start', but nobody really explains why. It seems that if kewl
> start should be used 100% of the time then why is there even an option for
> loop start?

Basically, it's the difference between "exactly the standard" and "a
setting that most people find useful".  If someone wants the pure
standard, because they think that our extras are causing problems,
they're welcome to try it (people will find all sorts of things to
blame when they're having issues).  But you're right, there's almost
no practical reason to have loopstart be a separate setting.

-Tilghman

--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev