<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Carlos Alvarez wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFn1dUEQWXm+Bkm-Gr1k08tE0X1KODHHTZudV64jC2_k8+pZ7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Hose <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:hose+asterisk@bluemaggottowel.com"
target="_blank">hose+asterisk@bluemaggottowel.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We have an asterisk frontend terminating all our SIP phones
to, and an<br>
asterisk backend with a wildcard PRI card in it connecting to
the PTSN.<br>
The frontend handles 99% of dialplan logic and just hands off
anything<br>
outgoing to the backend via IAX2, which dials out on one of
the open<br>
channels.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>IAX is buggy. We've never seen a reliable system using it.
We've given up on it.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have seen this assertion from time to time, but never any real
details<br>
<br>
There is a world wide network of users who communicate using IAX,
and many with PSTN service from providers using IAX. with no
complaints<br>
Can someone please provide meaningful details on what "buggy" really
means? Rather than such a sweeping condemnation. If it is so buggy,
why isn't it either fixed or discontinued?<br>
<br>
It certainly is much less prone to hacking and abuse than SIP.
Probably not due to the protocol design as much as it isn't as
universal<br>
<br>
John Novack<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Dog is my Co-pilot
</body>
</html>