[asterisk-users] T1 "access layer" used Cisco or new Digium

[Tom Browning]

I'm looking to build a robust inbound DID access layer for an application I
am working on.  This might start off simply as 8 DID T1/ISDN lines and
eventually grow to a few dozen T1 lines worth of access or higher.

(In a prior life, I had 14 DS3s of inbound toll free terminating on Dialogic
card based IVR platforms ... then one day the Asterisk/VoIP bug bit me but
that's another story)

So with my existing biases, I'm tempted to do one of two things:

a) buy used Cisco Voice AS5300s (4 X T1 to SIP gateway for $3,200 and 2U of
rack space)

or

b) buy Digium T1 cards in 2 port or 4 port flavors and place in 1U or 2U
rackmount servers and use as dedicated ISDN T1 to SIP gateways.

The "upstream" of this "access layer" is SIP based resource including
Asterisk and other applications.  The ISDN to SIP layer is strictly for
reliable inbound termination of calls and delivery to a SIP environment.

I have great trust in operational stability of both Cisco voice products and
Asterisk.  So I'm torn somewhat and would be interested in other experiences
and opinions.  (The money I might save by buying alternatives to Digium
cards is not really on the table here, I'm am significantly predisposed to
buying Digium T1 cards and would be interested in specific card
recommendations).

If in isn't obvious, I'm not interested in paying full retail Cisco prices
for this project, that's why used Cisco voice products are one choice.

(Using SIP providers for the project is also on the table but somewhat
orthogonal to this question unless you think I am totally nuts for even
thinking of building my own T1 ingress network.  If that is the case, please
state it gently :-)  It seems to me that T1 prices are low enough that they
compete with "virutal T1" pricing per DS0 from the SIP providers)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20080216/0efd229b/attachment.htm