[asterisk-users] sangoma zaptel patches
creslin at digium.com
Tue Nov 13 13:59:32 CST 2007
Steve Totaro wrote:
> Dovid B wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tilghman Lesher" <tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com>
>> To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
>> <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] sangoma zaptel patches
>>> On Sunday 11 November 2007 11:07:04 Steve Totaro wrote:
>>>> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>>>> Sangoma's s setup process includes a small patch to Zaptel. I have some
>>>>> technical reservations with that patch. It seems that under certain
>>>>> circumstances it may cause unexpected behavior when used with other
>>>>> Zaptel channel drivers. I also don't understand why a safer method is
>>>>> not used.
>>>> Just out of curiosity, I have yet to see any issues with Sangoma cards
>>>> and the way they ride on top (and patch) the Zaptel drivers. This
>>>> personal dataset is around one hundred productions boxes.
>>> How many of those boxes are of the type that Tzafrir is worried about?
>>> Specifically, how many of those boxes contain a combination of telephony
>>> hardware from vendors other than Sangoma?
>> I have a box that now has a TDM400P. I will be installing a sangoma card in
>> it soon and I actually need support for this.
> I set up almost the exact same configuration and all went well (HP
> DL380). No gotchas or glitches.
> I have a feeling that Tzafrir is trying to fix what is not broken, since
> he never pointed out a single conflict between various hardware using
> patched Zaptel drivers configurations.
> Maybe he is looking down the road and being proactive which I applaud,
> but I think he is obsessing over what he feels is the "incorrect" way of
> doing things and demanding (tone in emails) that they cooperate and do
> what he tells them. A little tact goes a long way.
I think that part of it is that the patch that they do to zaptel
replicates existing zaptel functionality (zt_hdlc functions) for
hardware d-channel support. There has been no change in their patch to
use these existing functions, and they are implementing this via an
ioctl function within a kernel driver, which is not a pretty way to do
what they are trying to do.
More information about the asterisk-users