[Asterisk-Users] request for clarification on Asterisk T.38 bounty

[Rosario Pingaro]

is it possible to test some patch about T38 passthrough?
In fact we have a t38 tested prvider and a t38 tested ata.

Would you like to share the code?

Thanks
Rosario


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Underwood" <steveu at coppice.org>
To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" 
<asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] request for clarification on Asterisk T.38 
bounty


> Adam Megacz wrote:
>
>>The bounty stands at $5,500.  I'm seriously considering taking a shot
>>at it if I can find a decent T.38 provider to test with (I'm still
>>hoping for reliable PAYG T.38).
>>
>>It looks like a lot of very smart people have done a lot of very hard
>>work (t38modem, spandsp) that would go towards getting this working.
>>At this point it appears to be mostly a matter of integration
>>(libspandsp+asterisk), encapsulating T.38 inside IAX2 (not too hard),
>>and testing (tedious and time-consuming).  Basically the easier but
>>less-fun part of the "big-picture" task.
>>
> t38modem is of little use for this. It is purely a terminating program. 
> spandsp is, of course, applicable as its modems are a core requirement. 
> Doing a quick botch up of T.38 isn't too hard. A solid reliable 
> implementation takes considerably more effort. Some real R as well as D is 
> needed to do it properly. The bounties give no indication of criteria for 
> judging completeness.
>
>>My main question is this: how is the bounty divided?  Does the person
>>who does this "grunt work" get the whole $5,500, or does part of it go
>>to the authors of t38modem/spandsp (which would surely be a large part
>>of any solution)?
>>
> I think you should forget these bounties. There is nobody administering 
> them, so I think the chances of a payout are minimal.
>
>>I guess on one hand it would be unjust *not* to divide the bounty with
>>them, but on the other hand, if the bounty is to be divided, I think
>>the uncertainty about exactly how that would happen might be a factor
>>in why the bounty has gone unclaimed for so long.
>>
> It has gone unclaimed for so long because the problem is not trivial, and 
> I have been too busy with other things to complete my implementation. It 
> has been sitting here half finished since the beginning of the year. 
> Passthrough is simple, but the interesting things are termination, and 
> PSTN gateway operation. The code I have, tidied up, would provide 
> UDPTL-to-UDPTL passthrough operation for SIP, which many would find 
> useful. Maybe I should tidy and commit it as an interm step. It implements 
> the UDPTL transport, with full FEC handling, and offer some simple botches 
> to sip.c to make it udptl and T.38 aware. I have most of a gateway and 
> termination implementation, too, but it isn't close to being ready to 
> commit. I find sip.c is currently too messy to produce anything more than 
> a botch for it. A couple of people have said they are reworking sip.c to 
> make the addition of new codecs, transports, etc. and their renegotiation 
> function smoothly. I haven't seen any results so far. I did only minimal 
> work on sip.c in the hope that one those efforts would bear fruit in * 
> 1.2.
>
> As with many things in *, the licencing forced me to do rather more work 
> than necessary. If * were GPL, I could have used some GPL'ed ASN.1 code I 
> found. To make code that could be committed to CVS I had to spend quite 
> some time rolling my own routines. The final result is faster, but it took 
> a lot more effort.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>