Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
spandsp doesn't try to reimplement all of HylaFAX. It reimplements only one piece - the T.4/T.30 code. I have a half implemented "spandsp as class 1 fax modem" which I put aside. People are using spandsp happily for things like fax to e-mail. Introducing HylaFAX would really slow things down. That said, I'd really like to complete the class 1 modem interface, and make HylaFAX an option for people.
Well, I was thinking of HylaFAX running on another box, with some type of IAX2 "virtual FAX modem" client running on the same machine, using IAX2 to communicate to Asterisk. That would remove the CPU usage from the Asterisk box and put it where it belongs.
If you want to FAX over IP you need to be *very* careful if you want it to be reliable. You cannot use anything other than A-law or u-law as the codec. However, even using those, any data slips will kill the FAX operation. If the two boxes are on the same LAN it tends to work OK.
I'm curious how you think "HylaFAX would really slow things down", if you mean something other that CPU usage? I'd see adding HylaFAX to the mix as adding well-tested and reliable ECM, MR, MMR and other protocol support on top of the virtual modem you've already implemented, as well as supporting alternative FAX origination methods (email, print, etc.).
I mean CPU loading. HylaFAX only does 1D coding (unless that changed very recently) and the ECM is brand new. The features you list may be a lot less well tested than you think. :-) Also, only a tiny fraction of FAX machines can even support ECM.
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
