[Asterisk-Users] IAXy - anyone using them yet?

[Michael Graves]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:51:07 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:

>Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:06:17 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner <kris at krisk.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>I think, that from a competitive standpoint, I don't
>>>know how these devices can really compete against something like the
>>>Sipura-2000, when you get two FXS ports, many more features, and even
>>>DNS (for less money)!
>> 
>> 
>> The answer is very simple: "something like the Sipura-2000" doesn't support IAX.
>> 
>> rgds
>> benjk
>> 
>Benjamin,
>
>	I understand that, but if Digium (and us) are ever going to see IAX 
>(and IAX devices) become a success, they have to at least be on par 
>(feature wise) with the SIP devices.  I think that it is important to 
>remember that IAX is "the little guy" right now and in my opinion, 
>"little guys" usually have to blow away the competition just to make it. 
>  Problems like the ones I was experiencing just led me to SIP (and 
>Sipuras).  I love IAX, I use it to trunk between my * machines and my 
>laptop when I am on the road.  But I cannot say to a client: "Here is 
>this little box (iAXY) which has this great protocol (IAX2), but won't 
>work with that $1000 switch you just bought, and also doesn't support 
>one of the core internet protocols of the internet (for failover, etc.). 
>  Did I mention that it was more expensive?
>
>	Here is box b (Sipura SPA-2000), it works with your Cisco switch, 
>supports 2x as many lines, and works with DNS (which I NEED), but has a 
>less favorable transport protocol (which they don't even care about). 
>Oh yeah, and it's cheaper.
>
>	When I ask which one they would like me to implement for them, can you 
>guess what their reaction usually is?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but IAXy doesn't relate to the Cisco
switch at all. I don't view IAXy as a product to compete with SPA-x000
devices. IAXy is a little bit of magic that extends the usefullness of
Asterisk. Truthfully, IAX2 is the magic...IAXy is just one end of the
wire when * is the other.

That I can provide an IAX2 based transport that punches through NAT
devices is simply marvelous. That it's a "dumb"-ish device is ok as I
don't need it to do anything fancy. That's what my diaplan is for.

The big advantage is being IAX2 based. That's key. Nothing else
competes.

BTW, I own several SPA-2000 and an SPA-3000. The SPA-3000 in particular
is way too complex for what I need to do with it and Asterisk. 

Michael
--
Michael Graves                           mgraves at pixelpower.com
Sr. Product Specialist                          www.pixelpower.com
Pixel Power Inc.                                 mgraves at mstvp.com

o713-861-4005
o800-905-6412
c713-201-1262

"...All we are is dust in the wind." - Kansas
 
** Tag(s) inserted by Bandit Tagger98 - http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c918704