[asterisk-users] outbound fax over t38 gateway can't pass

[Steve Underwood]

On 02/29/2012 02:28 PM, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
> btw, played with res_fax.conf
> if I set maxrate=7200 fax machines try (and fail) 9600 anyway.
> Why? If limited ti 7200? looks like bug...
Why do you think everything you don't understand is a bug? What you see 
is correct behaviour. Any party in the FAX chain can block V.17, or 
V.17+V.29. Only the entity sending a FAX can block individual modes. 
That's just how the FAX protocol works.
>
> So I set maxrate=4800 and modems=v27.
> Faxes pass....
>
> Looks like problems with V29...
I told you before what where the problem lies. It won't change by 
posting more messages like this.
>
>
>
> 29.02.2012 07:56, Dmitry Melekhov пишет:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I have problems with outbound faxes with asterisk 10.2 t38 gateway.
>>
>> There is asterisk box, connected to panasonic kx-td500 over PRI link 
>> with TE122.
>>
>> If we try to send fax with following path:
>>
>> panasonic 500 extension fax machine panasonic500-> asterisk-> 
>> ooh323-> cisco 3845-> fax machine
>>
>> fax can't pass. always reproducable.
>>
>> as I see in tcpdump produced dump fax machines tries to connect on 
>> 9600 and failed, no attempt to down speed.
>>
>> If I send fax in path
>> panasonic 500 extension fax machine -> asterisk (ReceiveFAX) it is 
>> received successefully all the time.
>>
>> If I send fax from asterisk with SendFax as following:
>>
>> asterisk(SendFax) -> panasonic500->asterisk-> ooh323-> cisco 
>> 3845...-> fax machine
>> it always passes.
>> Usually on 7200, sometimes on 4800.
>>
>> So ooh323 works OK, fax part works OK, t38 works OK, but not with fax 
>> machine (we tested to different).
>>
>> Inbound faxes in reverse direction, i.e.
>> fax machine...cisco3845-> ooh323 -> asterisk -> panasonic -> fax machine
>> always pass on 7200.
>>
>>
>> More info is here https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-19436
>>
>> Bug report was closed because not a bug :-)
>>
>> Could you help me solve this problem?
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>
Steve