[asterisk-users] FXS channel banks

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Steve Totaro
<stotaro at totarotechnologies.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
>  > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:57AM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>  >  > >    http://www.voipon.co.uk/xorcom-astribank32-32-fxs-channel-bank-p-530.html
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Trouble is, you'll need 7 32-port units to cover your needs and I'm not
>  >  > > sure if USB2 is up to driving that many ... Tzafrir?
>  >  >
>  >  > One USB connector can take a number close to that easily. But even if
>  >  > USB were the bottleneck, you would just add another USB controller in
>  >  > the form of PCI card and get extra bandwidth.
>  >
>  >  Is there any reason you'd want to do that on a system of that scale
>  >  instead of just using Ethernetted FXS boxes on a dedicated 100Base?
>  >
>  >  Even if you didn't want to use reinvite, seems you'd still win just
>  >  from the less expensive host interface (I can't understand people using
>  >  T-1 interfaces for FXS channels either, honestly, in the current
>  >  environment).
>  >
>  >
>  >  Cheers,
>  >  -- jra
>  >  --
>  >  Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
>  >  Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
>  >  Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
>  >  St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>  >
>  >              Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
>  >              Those who count the vote decide everything.
>  >                -- (Joseph Stalin)
>
>
>  http://www.quintum.com/enterprise/en_productdetail.html?id=19
>
>  48 Port, you cannot go wrong although, you are going to pay a bit,
>  well worth it.  Besides, breaking it down per port makes it a little
>  more palatable.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Steve Totaro
>

Sorry, wrong link.

http://www.quintum.com/enterprise/en_productdetail.html?id=21