[asterisk-users] Which policy for ISDN BRI support in NT/PtMP ?

[Olivier]

2009/1/26 Benoit <maverick at maverick.eu.org>

> Olivier a écrit :
> > From my point of view, the most important feature is TE-PTMP as this
> > the one used here (in France) when connecting a new Asterisk-based
> > IPBX to ISDN (I really don't know why TE-PTP is not used for that).
> Well this may depend of some parameter. We have a dual BRI line from
> France Telecom, in PTP mode.
> >
> > From the same point of view, 2nd most needed feature is NT-PTMP when
> > connecting legacy PBX to Asterisk (for the very same reason, those PBX
> > use TE-PTMP).
> >
> > If others could join this thread and say if they agree or not with
> > NT-PTMP being the 2nd most needed mode, would be great.
> Well, i agree on something, when you are using PTMP mode, being able to
> do it both way is very usefull (for transperency placing an * between a
> legacy pabx and the 'outside world').
> However it's when their is at least one NT mode, you could always
> reconfigure the pabx (but you lose the ability to reconnect him directly
> to the bri line
> in case of problem)
>
> > Please, do not hesitate to comment.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Right now, I would not preclude the possibility that NT-PTMP support
> >     might be added, but I could not give you a concrete time at which it
> >     will be done, since it will probably require some significant
> internal
> >     changes in libpri.
> >
> >     To answer your final question, for now, if you need NT-PTMP mode, you
> >     should use mISDN.
> >
> >
> > I'm afraid this  mISDN option is not very encouraging these days :
> > - misdn mailing list is not working these days (I'm hoping I'm wrong
> > but it seems to be the case),
> > - mISDN won't compile on latest 2.6.26 kernels so maybe mISDN
> > developpers are thinking B410P features inclusion in 1.6 sets a mark
> > in Asterisk BRI policy and it's not worth developing mISDN anymore.
> > NT PTMP is very significantly different, in that you have to do much
> Their is an unannonced mISN-1.1.9 release (and even 1.1.9.1 now). Since
> their is no release note i can't say for sur they fixed this
> but this may be worth a try


I didn't know that !!
Now I can see it appearing : it dates from today !
Thanks for letting us know ... (as mISDN list is silent)

>
> >
> > So my opinion is that these NT-PTMP is really and urgently needed,
> > especially if this TEI management is rather complex and therefore
> > would take a long time to develop and stabilize.
> > The alternative is to keep using those Patton, Quintum, etc ... boxes
> > which is not what we would prefer ;-))
> Why so ?
> As for myself am very interested in red-fone boxes, being able to
> separate the ipbx and the PRI 'access point' ahs some advantage (easier
> resiliency)


I agree that separating functions into several boxes is fine but today, it
would be touchy (if possible) to build all boxes using Asterisk and Digium
boards, for example ...
If we want Asterisk ecosystem to develop (buying boards paying software
development), it's important to be able to build those boxes using
components made by companies (Digium, Xorcom, ...) contributing to Asterisk
code ...



>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090126/5d2d200d/attachment.htm