RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE
TDM is not limited to voice. But there are better ways of moving data across an ethernet segment. Look at the various treads recently about TDMoE. Make sure you are using a separate card for anytype of non-testing load. Use a 2.6 based kernel, Better networking. Pick a religion and follow it, you with need a bit a divine intervention. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike HammettSent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:43 PMTo: asterisk-users@lists.digium.comSubject: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Can TDMoE be used for non-voice applications? Can another box be setup with TDMoE on the other side to dump it back out via T-1? How does this compare with an off-the-shelf TDM over Ethernet or IP device? Mike HammettIntelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE
Well, I don't know what it is at the moment, I just know its a wireless T-1 that I'd migrate over to a different infrastructure. Actually, TDMoE can route and can go longer distances when you run it over Mikrotik and use their EoIP. Well, given that the fact that it runs over Ethernet instead of IP is its only issue. Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:11 AM Subject: Asterisk-Users Digest, Vol 19, Issue 59 Send Asterisk-Users mailing list submissions to asterisk-users@lists.digium.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Asterisk-Users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Asterisk-Users Digest, Vol 19, Issue 58 (Mike Hammett) 2. RE: Re: Asterisk-Users Digest, Vol 19, Issue 58 (Alexander Lopez) 3. RE: Two Lines, Two Businesses (Les Bell) 4. Re: Welltech USA? and Wellgate Products? (Dinesh Nair) 5. Re: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 6. Re: Two Lines, Two Businesses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 7. NSLU2 Asterisk (sukrit) 8. What ATA should I buy? (Tomislav Par?ina) 9. Queue - joinempty (Tomislav Par?ina) 10. RE: Two Lines, Two Businesses (Alexander Lopez) 11. Fax transmission interrupt on ISDN network (Olivier Krief) 12. Voicemail Problem (Sam Lee) 13. Re: ztdummy on gentoo 2005.1 (Tzafrir Cohen) 14. Voicemailmain() refusing connection problem (Sam Lee) 15. Tormenta 2 and channel bank (Viktor Tatianin) 16. TDM400p (Hans Witvliet) 17. Re: Web based SIP client (Klaus Darilion) 18. How can I send DTMF from the console? (Anthony Azzopardi) 19. RE: cisco 7940 firmware upgrade (kevin ling) 20. Re: Bandwidth: to seperate or not to seperate (Derek Conniffe) 21. RE: festival-script.pl... howto change language? (kevin ling) -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:20:14 -0600 From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Asterisk-Users Digest, Vol 19, Issue 58 To: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Reason I ask is I may have a non-voice T-1 replacement project going on and I'm investigating my various options. Costs may be about the same for turn-key and DIY. Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:07 AM Subject: Asterisk-Users Digest, Vol 19, Issue 58 Send Asterisk-Users mailing list submissions to asterisk-users@lists.digium.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Asterisk-Users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: Welltech USA? and Wellgate Products? (kevin ling) 2. RE: Connecting to live calls (Wai Wu) 3. RE: Web based SIP client (kevin ling) 4. Re: 911 and ISDN PRI (Darren Nickerson) 5. Asterisk returning 403 Forbidden response ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 6. RE: Connecting to live calls (Alexander Lopez) 7. TDMoE (Mike Hammett) 8. SIP-H323 Help and Multiple Listening Port (Kenige Ho) 9. RE: TDMoE (Alexander Lopez) 10. Re: Mitel 5220 IP phones (tracinet) 11. Polycom dialplan restriction (Carlos Chavez) 12. SER + Asterisk (Nick Hoffman) 13. OOH323 Configuration (Abdul Lateef) 14. Re: Bandwidth: to seperate or not to seperate (Rich Adamson) 15. RE: PRI indications. (Mark Edwards) ------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 23:59:18 -0500 From: "Alexander Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" TDM is not limited to voice. But there are better ways of moving data across an ethernet segment. Look at the various treads recently about TDMoE. Make sure you are using a separate card for anytype of non-testing load. Use a 2.6 based kernel, Better networking. Pick a religion and follow it, you with need a bit a divine intervention. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:4
Re: [asterisk-users] TDMOE Timing
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Dave Fullerton < dfullertaster...@shorelinecontainer.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have two machines I'm connecting with TDMOE (dahdi dynamic spans) and > I have a question about timing parameters. By my understanding one > machine should be the source of the timing and the other a slave of that > timing. > > So on machine A I have the following in system.conf: > dynamic=eth,eth0/00:0C:29:55:89:7E,24,0 > > On machine B I have this is system.conf: > dynamic=eth,eth0/00:18:8B:C7:F6:94,24,1 > > So machine A is the source of timing and B is slave to it. If both of > these machines also have a digium (TDM400P in one and a TE110P in the > other) card in them is this configuration still correct or should I use > 0 for timing on both? > > The reason I ask is if I boot both machines fresh and I execute > dahdi_cfg on machine A first and then machine B I either get a kernel > oops (with 2.6.27.11) or complete freeze (with 2.6.23.17) on machine B > pretty much without fail. If I do machine B first and then A everything > works fine. I'm using dahdi_linux 2.1.0.4 on both. > > I know I can just use SIP or IAX or anything else to connect these two > machines, but I'm using this as a learning experience to play with PRI > setups. > > Thanks > > -Dave > > I cannot speak about DAHDI but I can tell you that the timing provided by the card is different than the timing of a PRI Span. I suspect that DAHDI has a bug in TDMoE because the spans should either not come up but Asterisk should run and the Kernel should not bomb out, at least I have never seen this with Zaptel. If nobody answers your question with a real answer, I suggest opening a bug report. -- Thanks, Steve Totaro +18887771888 (Toll Free) +12409381212 (Cell) ___ -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Question
Rad's TDMoIP uses DSP chips on each end of the link to compress the data. Gary > Just a Question. I would like to know if TDMoE follows specifiaciones of > TDMoIP RAD protocol that says that there is a compression of 16/1 when > you do TDMoIP. > > > > Manuel Marin Garcia > TRANSTELCO S.A. DE C.V. > Campos Eliseos 9050 B4 â?" Cd. Juárez, Chih. 32452 - México > Oficina: +52 656 692 11 09 â?" Fax: +52 656 692 1112 - Celular: 915 727 > 6141 > http://www.transtelco.com.mx > > ___ > 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 > ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Question
It using DSP chips makes no difference, it can be done in software aswell... (in theory, if its open, and the algorithmic complexity is low) Secondly, I think just the Name explains the difference between TDMoE and TDMoIP... it's 2 different things... actually TDMoE offers very much overhead.. but it's meant for Ethernet... Lan... zaptel timing... low latency... TDMoIP... well... just some marketing buzz imho, and probably a proprietary protocol (I haven't even looked at the rad website) Regards Gary Carr wrote: Rad's TDMoIP uses DSP chips on each end of the link to compress the data. Gary Just a Question. I would like to know if TDMoE follows specifiaciones of TDMoIP RAD protocol that says that there is a compression of 16/1 when you do TDMoIP. Manuel Marin Garcia TRANSTELCO S.A. DE C.V. Campos Eliseos 9050 B4 â?" Cd. Juárez, Chih. 32452 - México Oficina: +52 656 692 11 09 â?" Fax: +52 656 692 1112 - Celular: 915 727 6141 http://www.transtelco.com.mx ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Question
TDMoIP is nothing else like IAX2 with trunking, i would say. And a compression of 16/1 (payload bandwidth!) sounds like g723.1 to me. > > > >>Just a Question. I would like to know if TDMoE follows specifiaciones of > >>TDMoIP RAD protocol that says that there is a compression of 16/1 when > >>you do TDMoIP. > >> > >> Klaus -- Klaus-Peter Junghanns CEO, CTO Junghanns.NET GmbH Breite Strasse 13a - 12167 Berlin - Germany fon: (de) +49 30 79705390 fon: (uk) +44 870 1244692 fax: (de) +49 30 79705391 iaxtel: 1-700-157-8753 http://www.Junghanns.NET/asterisk/ ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Question
Klaus-Peter Junghanns wrote: TDMoIP is nothing else like IAX2 with trunking, i would say. And a compression of 16/1 (payload bandwidth!) sounds like g723.1 to me. 16:1 means an avaerage of 4kbps per channel. It would have to be G.723.1 with optimistic silence compression to get that low. I guess IAX2 is the *only* standard for TDMoIP, since the other trunked solutions are totally closed. :-) 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
Hi, Unless you have a very large configuration, the bandwidth of a 100Mbps ethernet will not be the issue. Theoretically you could have 10 E1's worth of TDMoE traffic on a single 100Mbps wire. I have sucessfully used EuroISDN with one 31 channel TDMoE (E1 is 32 64Kbps channels, where one is used for framming, so you have 31 useable channels). You could use Trunked IAX2 as well, the advantage is to avoid cross-coding, as TDMoE can only use uLaw/aLaw, while trunked IAX2 can use any useable Asterisk codec. However TDMoE to PRI/FXS/FXO connections are more efficient, as they can use zaptel bridging. Marcelo Pacheco Em Sáb 11 Set 2004 23:41, Marc Storck escreveu: > Hello, > > I want to link several * boxes together. Some of them are dedicated as > "user" servers (SIP and IAX clients connect to them) and some are used > as PRI servers (where the PRIs are hooked onto). > > I think TDMoE is the only channel type where you can group different > Interfaces into a single group. > > E.g. for using Dial(ZAP/g1/12345), I think you cannot group different > IAX accounts and use them via Dial(IAX/g1/12345). Or am I wrong?? > > So I looked at the WIKI and it shows an example using "em" signalling. > What other signallings are supported by TDMoE? > > How many TDMoE trunks with 30 channels each may I run on a 100 Mbit/s > LAN dedicated to TDMoe??? ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 21:41, Marc Storck wrote: > Hello, > > I want to link several * boxes together. Some of them are dedicated as > "user" servers (SIP and IAX clients connect to them) and some are used > as PRI servers (where the PRIs are hooked onto). > > I think TDMoE is the only channel type where you can group different > Interfaces into a single group. > > E.g. for using Dial(ZAP/g1/12345), I think you cannot group different > IAX accounts and use them via Dial(IAX/g1/12345). Or am I wrong?? IAX with groups doesn't make sense. IAX being a network protocol is not physical port limited like PSTN hardware. Your trick here is to understand that you can dial via IAX from one machine to another and the second machine then takes the incoming call and does it's own Dial(Zap/g1/12345). Or with the use of a switch command, the IAX connections to the other side is implied and the remote side says it can complete the call so the "user" machine says, okay, do it. TDMoE has a limitation of X channels per link, and some people have noted troubles when trying to use more than one TDMoE circuit. IAX has no trouble talking to mulitple places and multiple calls. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
Hello, thanks for the answers!!! You mentionned to use the switch command. I read about it in the WIKI, but I couldn't find enought information to understand what it is actually doing. Can someone point me to the right direction? Marc Steven Critchfield wrote: On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 21:41, Marc Storck wrote: Hello, I want to link several * boxes together. Some of them are dedicated as "user" servers (SIP and IAX clients connect to them) and some are used as PRI servers (where the PRIs are hooked onto). I think TDMoE is the only channel type where you can group different Interfaces into a single group. E.g. for using Dial(ZAP/g1/12345), I think you cannot group different IAX accounts and use them via Dial(IAX/g1/12345). Or am I wrong?? IAX with groups doesn't make sense. IAX being a network protocol is not physical port limited like PSTN hardware. Your trick here is to understand that you can dial via IAX from one machine to another and the second machine then takes the incoming call and does it's own Dial(Zap/g1/12345). Or with the use of a switch command, the IAX connections to the other side is implied and the remote side says it can complete the call so the "user" machine says, okay, do it. TDMoE has a limitation of X channels per link, and some people have noted troubles when trying to use more than one TDMoE circuit. IAX has no trouble talking to mulitple places and multiple calls. ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 06:42, Marc Storck wrote: > Hello, > > thanks for the answers!!! You mentionned to use the switch command. I > read about it in the WIKI, but I couldn't find enought information to > understand what it is actually doing. Can someone point me to the right > direction? The switch command is helpful in tieing multiple machines together. Switch allows you to have one asterisk machine ask another if it can complete a call. Think of it a bit like a remote include. Basically from a context on machine A, you set up a switch statement to machine B in a specific context. Whenever machine B says it can complete the call, you end up with an implied IAX call to machine B. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
is there any in-depth information available about the switch command??? Marc Steven Critchfield wrote: On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 06:42, Marc Storck wrote: Hello, thanks for the answers!!! You mentionned to use the switch command. I read about it in the WIKI, but I couldn't find enought information to understand what it is actually doing. Can someone point me to the right direction? The switch command is helpful in tieing multiple machines together. Switch allows you to have one asterisk machine ask another if it can complete a call. Think of it a bit like a remote include. Basically from a context on machine A, you set up a switch statement to machine B in a specific context. Whenever machine B says it can complete the call, you end up with an implied IAX call to machine B. ___ 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
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > thanks for the answers!!! You mentionned to use the switch command. I > read about it in the WIKI, but I couldn't find enought information to > understand what it is actually doing. Can someone point me to the > right direction? > I would do this: Create a single numbering plan for all users on your network Get each server to have extensions from 1-999. Then assign to each server its code. Depending on how many servers you have (or will have) you could use 1-9 or 11-99 or more but you must have server's code number of digits same accross your network. Now , get all these servers link/register to each other using IAX. Stephen, is right DO NOT use TDMoE for this purpose. As to TDMoE, my understanding (I have not tried it) is that it uses FULL bandwidth assigned at all times. Can your IP connectivity cope with that? Once you have this setup, your local users (users registered to same server) can call each by dialing local extension(1-999). Network users on the other hand need to know FULL dialing digits for a network user. For example a user from server A need to know FULL number ($SERVER CODE + LOCAL EXTENSION) for all other network users. This number users will give each other or you can make it available to all users by some other method. Ta SJ ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question
You can use MPLS which takes care all the point you had mentioned. appan kh - Original Message - From: "trixter aka Bret McDanel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 10:43 +0100, Appan KH wrote: > You can use MPLS which takes care all the point you had mentioned. > > appan kh Not entirely, at least not as I understand MPLS. MPLS will add a little bit of data which is used to route the traffic, it doesnt deal with encapsulating TDM data (say from a T1 or DS3 from a telco) and allowing that to cross a data link. So that still leaves the question of TDMoE or not given that I need to optionally (and unknown beforehand) be able to traffic modem data reliably. Unless you are talknig about using MPLS with TDMoE which doesnt answer the actual question I had about has anyone tried it, does it work reliably even at the faster modem speeds, etc. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question
TDMoE is useless. I've tested it on newer intel P4 machines with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. There is CPU peaks causing by TMDoE driver. If you want pass modem data, try IAX u/alaw codec. In my environment it works great (switched lan) trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 10:43 +0100, Appan KH wrote: You can use MPLS which takes care all the point you had mentioned. appan kh Not entirely, at least not as I understand MPLS. MPLS will add a little bit of data which is used to route the traffic, it doesnt deal with encapsulating TDM data (say from a T1 or DS3 from a telco) and allowing that to cross a data link. So that still leaves the question of TDMoE or not given that I need to optionally (and unknown beforehand) be able to traffic modem data reliably. Unless you are talknig about using MPLS with TDMoE which doesnt answer the actual question I had about has anyone tried it, does it work reliably even at the faster modem speeds, etc. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE problem
i think, TDMoE is not supported/developed anymore. This is known bug.
Franz Wu wrote:
Hi all
my system 1:
celeron 1.2GHz + intel 810e (asus TUW-LA) + 256MB SDRAM
onboard vga (intel 810e chipset)
RTL8100 NIC
debian sarge 3.1r0a / kernel 2.6.8-2-686
asterisk / libpri / zaptel from CVS HEAD @ 2005-10-24
system 2:
pentium II 533MHz + intel 810e (dfi PW35-E) + 256MB SDRAM
onboard vga
RTL8139D NIC
TE110P
debian sarge 3.1r0a / kernel 2.6.8-2-686
asterisk / libpri / zaptel from CVS HEAD @ 2005-10-24
CASE 1: configuring TDMoE and TE100P as the same time make kernel hang
zaptel.conf of system 1
dynamic=eth,eth0/MAC#2,31,1
bchan=1-15,17-31
dchan=16
zapata.conf
context = p1
swtichtype = qsig
signalling = pri_cpe
resetinterval = 3600
channel => 1-15
channel => 17-31
zaptel.conf of system 2
# for TDMoE
dynamic=eth,eth0/MAC#1,31,0
bchan=1-15,17-31
dchan=16
# for TE110P
span=1,0,0,ccs,hdb3,crc4
bchan=32-46,48-62
dchan=47
zapata.conf
context = e1
swtichtype = qsig
signalling = pri_cpe
resetinterval = 3600
channel => 1-15
channel => 17-31
context=p2
swtichtype = qsig
signalling = pri_net
resetinterval = 3600
channel => 32-46
channel => 48-62
with this configuration, modprobe ok. ztcfg - ok.
but at system boot-up, the kernel dumps a lot of garbage ("softirq.c
badness").
if the TE110P card removed from PCI slot of system 2 as well as
corresponding config, things go well as long as * does not start.
CASE II TDMoE span has a lot of frame reject and D-channel down and up
all configuration same as CASE I except the TE110P removed.
when more than 5 calls are set up between two systems, messages about frame
reject, "PRI got event: HDLC Bad FCS" dumps on console and D-channel looks
like going up and down and up and down.
even with 5 or less calls, the sound quality is bad.
On the voip-info.org wiki, somebody seems having same problem as me.
Any opinion will be appreciated.
Franz Wu
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question
On Jun 25, 2006, at 1:55 AM, Stelios Koroneos wrote: Greetings ! I am looking into the TDMoE functionality of the Zapata drivers and * and i am kind of confused. Lets say i have 2 linux boxes, one has * running but no fxs/fxo hardware the other has a card (for example an x100p) but does not have * installed. If i just want to "use" the card (no * reduduncy etc) from the machine that runs *, do i need to have * running on both boxes for this to work ? or loading the appropriate drivers to the second machine will be saficient ? The examples i have seen mention zapata.conf entries which make me think that * should be running on both machines, but i am not sure if this applies in my case. Any ideas, thoughts, links etc are more than welcome Sounds like you would definitely need asterisk on the box with the card. I don't think the driver can do anything all on it's own. I am really a newbie though, so don't take my word as gospel. Marty ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE question
I asked about a similar application a few weeks back. This is sometimes referred to as "campusing" since you are basically going to make the two systems sharing their resources appear to be one system. From what I understand, you have to have both boxes running Asterisk. I am pretty sure that it's the Asterisk software, not the Zapata hardware, that does the actual sharing. :) Undrhil --- Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion On Jun 25, 2006, at 1:55 AM, Stelios Koroneos wrote: > > > Greetings ! > > I am looking into the TDMoE functionality of the Zapata drivers and * > > and i > > am kind of confused. > > Lets say i have 2 linux boxes, one has * running but no fxs/fxo > > hardware the > > other has a card (for example an x100p) but does not have * installed. > > If i just want to "use" the card (no * reduduncy etc) from the machine > > that > > runs *, do i need to > > have * running on both boxes for this to work ? or loading the > > appropriate > > drivers to the second machine will be saficient ? > > The examples i have seen mention zapata.conf entries which make me > > think > > that * should be running on both machines, but i am not sure if this > > applies > > in my case. > > > > Any ideas, thoughts, links etc are more than welcome > > > Sounds like you would definitely need asterisk on the box with the > card. I don't think the driver can do anything all on it's own. > > I am really a newbie though, so don't take my word as gospel. > > Marty > > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and codecs
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 11:55, James Sharp wrote: > If I have a system with 1 machine to handle incoming H.323 calls and then > multiple machines to distribute them to T1 ports over TDMoE, where does > the codec translation take place? Does it take place in the master system > or does it take place in each of the slave TDMoE systems? > > Also, any idea how many concurrent G.729 calls a system like this would > handle? Not to make you sound stupid, but TDMoE is Time Division Multiplex over Ethernet. TDM is the same as what is done on T1/E1 lines. TDM implies either ulaw or alaw encoding depending on your location. So therefore the codec translation occurs before the audio makes it to TDMoE. You probably would rather do IAX2 trunking as it uses only the necessary bandwidth needed for the in process calls. TDMoE will eat the same amount of bandwidth no matter what is being transported. Add to this the fact that just like real T1/E1 circuits, they can't be easily dynamically added. They have to be provisioned and then deployed. IAX2 will just scale to the ends of your bandwidth and CPU without additional setup. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and codecs
> On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 11:55, James Sharp wrote: >> If I have a system with 1 machine to handle incoming H.323 calls and >> then >> multiple machines to distribute them to T1 ports over TDMoE, where does >> the codec translation take place? Does it take place in the master >> system >> or does it take place in each of the slave TDMoE systems? >> >> Also, any idea how many concurrent G.729 calls a system like this would >> handle? > > Not to make you sound stupid, but TDMoE is Time Division Multiplex over > Ethernet. TDM is the same as what is done on T1/E1 lines. TDM implies > either ulaw or alaw encoding depending on your location. So therefore > the codec translation occurs before the audio makes it to TDMoE. That's what I figured. I just wanted to make sure I had my brain in the right direction. > You probably would rather do IAX2 trunking as it uses only the necessary > bandwidth needed for the in process calls. TDMoE will eat the same > amount of bandwidth no matter what is being transported. Add to this the > fact that just like real T1/E1 circuits, they can't be easily > dynamically added. They have to be provisioned and then deployed. IAX2 > will just scale to the ends of your bandwidth and CPU without additional > setup. So have one machine take the H.323 calls in and trunk them out to each of the slave machines via IAX2 trunking (something I've not used yet). And this will move codec processing out to each of the slave machines? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and codecs
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 13:51, James Sharp wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 11:55, James Sharp wrote: > >> If I have a system with 1 machine to handle incoming H.323 calls and > >> then > >> multiple machines to distribute them to T1 ports over TDMoE, where does > >> the codec translation take place? Does it take place in the master > >> system > >> or does it take place in each of the slave TDMoE systems? > >> > >> Also, any idea how many concurrent G.729 calls a system like this would > >> handle? > > > > Not to make you sound stupid, but TDMoE is Time Division Multiplex over > > Ethernet. TDM is the same as what is done on T1/E1 lines. TDM implies > > either ulaw or alaw encoding depending on your location. So therefore > > the codec translation occurs before the audio makes it to TDMoE. > > That's what I figured. I just wanted to make sure I had my brain in the > right direction. > > > You probably would rather do IAX2 trunking as it uses only the necessary > > bandwidth needed for the in process calls. TDMoE will eat the same > > amount of bandwidth no matter what is being transported. Add to this the > > fact that just like real T1/E1 circuits, they can't be easily > > dynamically added. They have to be provisioned and then deployed. IAX2 > > will just scale to the ends of your bandwidth and CPU without additional > > setup. > > So have one machine take the H.323 calls in and trunk them out to each of > the slave machines via IAX2 trunking (something I've not used yet). And > this will move codec processing out to each of the slave machines? If the remote ends can do the codec, then yes. If they can't deal with the incoming codec, then it will be done at your h323 end point. The benefit of IAX2 trunking is to cut down on your ethernet load and to make expanding easier. Not to mention IAX2 is much better tested than TDMoE. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and codecs
> If the remote ends can do the codec, then yes. If they can't deal with > the incoming codec, then it will be done at your h323 end point. The > benefit of IAX2 trunking is to cut down on your ethernet load and to > make expanding easier. Not to mention IAX2 is much better tested than > TDMoE. Can the IAX2 trunking do the equivalent of "groups" in Zaptel? What I'm needing to do is take a whole bunch of H.323 incoming calls and spread them out across many T1s (more than what would go into a single machine). I suppose I could do something like this in extensions.conf [incomingh323] exten => s,1,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) exten => s,102,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) exten => s,203,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) etc etc etc And then us Dial(Zap/g1) on each of the machines in the incomingiax context. Then I just have to put a G.729 codec on each of the remote machines to handle the G.729 to TDM codecing. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and codecs
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 14:39, James Sharp wrote: > > If the remote ends can do the codec, then yes. If they can't deal with > > the incoming codec, then it will be done at your h323 end point. The > > benefit of IAX2 trunking is to cut down on your ethernet load and to > > make expanding easier. Not to mention IAX2 is much better tested than > > TDMoE. > > Can the IAX2 trunking do the equivalent of "groups" in Zaptel? What I'm > needing to do is take a whole bunch of H.323 incoming calls and spread > them out across many T1s (more than what would go into a single machine). Trunking does combining of control data and audio data into a single packet so there are fewer packets on the wire. Every TCP/IP packet has a minimum of 40 bytes of header data. If you can pack the packet full, or at least to the MTU, you save a few 40 byte sections here and there. As you approach your bandwidth limit, little things like this help. But, no, it doesn't do the same as "groups" > I suppose I could do something like this in extensions.conf > > [incomingh323] > > exten => s,1,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > exten => s,102,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > exten => s,203,Dial(IAX2/foo:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > etc etc etc > > > And then us Dial(Zap/g1) on each of the machines in the incomingiax context. This would work, and has the added benefit of doing fail over if you decide to take down a machine for maintenance. > Then I just have to put a G.729 codec on each of the remote machines to > handle the G.729 to TDM codecing. Yep, you would have to place the G.729 codecs on each of the endpoints to cover the amount of calls you are trying to pass. This may be a better solution for you as you can deploy a new machine per T1/E1 and fill it out with the new license as it is deployed. Digium has already commented about how painful it is to move or grow licenses afterwards. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] TDMoE with Telco
--Original Message Text--- From: Yacine Boukaba Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:54:08 +0100 Hello, is it possible with TDMoE to replace classic digital T1/E1 interfaces like digium and sangoma cards connected to a telco. Or TDMoE is only possible for connecting two asterisk boxes using their NIC interfaces. if TDMoE can work with an T1/E1 connected with telco how we can get the remote mac address of the telco interface ? ThanksNo virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 6:59 PM I thought that TDMoE was largely depricated in the wake of DUNDi? Michael -- Michael Graves mgravesmstvp.com http://blog.mgraves.org o713-861-4005 c713-201-1262 sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] skype mjgraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] TDMoE with Telco
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Michael Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --Original Message Text--- > From: Yacine Boukaba > Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:54:08 +0100 > > Hello, is it possible with TDMoE to replace classic digital T1/E1 interfaces > like digium and sangoma cards connected to a telco. Or TDMoE is only > possible for connecting two asterisk boxes using their NIC interfaces. if > TDMoE can work with an T1/E1 connected with telco how we can get the remote > mac address of the telco interface ? ThanksNo virus found in this incoming > message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 > 6:59 PM > > I thought that TDMoE was largely depricated in the wake of DUNDi? > > Michael > -- > Michael Graves > mgravesmstvp.com > http://blog.mgraves.org > o713-861-4005 > c713-201-1262 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > skype mjgraves > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not as far as HA Asterisk and PRIs using products such as the Redfone's fonebridge. To the original poster, I seriously doubt it, never heard of anyone doing this and ANY network issues are going to ruin your calls. I think your best bet would be to find an ITSP, preferably that handles both the IP and PSTN sides of the equation, then you could utilize G729 and get more calls out of the pipe. I guess the real question is, why are you asking this question? Thanks, Steve T ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] TDMoE with Telco
You can use TDMoE to get an E1 running but its really designed to replicate an E1 end to end Its a standard and there is equipment out there that does it, e.g. from RAD and a few others. I didn't have any joy using the Asterisk code to get it going but it should in theory work. Its completely different to Dundi The challenge it is a protocol and needs two boxes talking TDMoE at each end. Telco's do not have this as an option, or at least none do that I have found Cheers Duncan Michael Graves wrote: > --Original Message Text--- > *From:* Yacine Boukaba > *Date:* Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:54:08 +0100 > > Hello, is it possible with TDMoE to replace classic digital T1/E1 > interfaces like digium and sangoma cards connected to a telco. Or > TDMoE is only possible for connecting two asterisk boxes using their > NIC interfaces. if TDMoE can work with an T1/E1 connected with telco > how we can get the remote mac address of the telco interface ? > ThanksNo virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: > 8/1/2008 6:59 PM > > I thought that TDMoE was largely depricated in the wake of DUNDi? > > Michael > -- > Michael Graves > mgravesmstvp.com > http://blog.mgraves.org > o713-861-4005 > c713-201-1262 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > skype mjgraves > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >___ >-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > >AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona >Register Now: http://www.astricon.net > >asterisk-users mailing list >To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] TDMoE with Telco
> -Original Message- > Not as far as HA Asterisk and PRIs using products such as the > Redfone's fonebridge. > > To the original poster, I seriously doubt it, never heard of anyone > doing this and ANY network issues are going to ruin your calls. > > I think your best bet would be to find an ITSP, preferably that > handles both the IP and PSTN sides of the equation, then you could > utilize G729 and get more calls out of the pipe. > > I guess the real question is, why are you asking this question? > > Thanks, > Steve T > My guess is what the original poster wants to know is if boxes like the redFone exist that allow you to set up your Asterisk box without having to directly plug in TDM cards like those from Digium and Sangoma. The short answer to this question is yes. There are a few solutions that run on TDMoE like the PhoneBridge redFone that plug into the T1/E1 from the telco on one end and connect to the Asterisk box via IP. Now about the MAC address, if you are talking about the MAC address of the TDMoE box that can easily be obtained but the MAC address of the telco's E1?? Not sure what you mean. Regards, Femi ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE or IAX?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Eric Bishop wrote: > Apart from the the coolness factor can anyone explain to me in what > situation one would use TDMoE rather than IAX for communication > betwwen 2 Asterisk servers? There are two advantages with TDMoE: * low latency (prevents far end echo from going from nice sidetone to irritating percevied echo) * supports full pri signalling (hangupcause, type of number etc) There are disadvantages as well compared to iax: * non routeable (local ethernet only) * channels have to be preconfigured * more? I guess the key factor is if you need the low almost-tdm latency. Peter ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE or IAX?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 06:56:19PM +1100, Eric Bishop wrote: > Hi all, > > Information on this topic seems a little scarce, so I thought I'd try > the list > > Apart from the the coolness factor can anyone explain to me in what > situation one would use TDMoE rather than IAX for communication > betwwen 2 Asterisk servers? > I thing that you're mostly better with IAX between 2 Asterisk servers. TDMoE, however, is not limited to Asterisk. It's part of zaptel. You can use it to transport a TDM link over an Ethernet network (or IP, with some kind of tunneling), and get it back as a TDM link on the other side (with proper hardware). -- Nicolas Bougues Axialys Interactive ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMOE + kernel badness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anybody have any issues running tdmoe on kernel 2.6+? I've got Suse 9.1 + 9.2 running 2.6.5 and 2.6.8 respectively, and when I enable dynamic spans between them, both boxes dump something similar to: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:141 [] local_bh_enable+0x48/0x60 [] dev_queue_xmit+0x230/0x240 Did you make any progress since your last post? I am experiencing the same problem on Sarge with 2.6.10. When I ztcfg a dynamic span while asterisk is running, I get a segmentation fault and network access freezes completely. If I configure the spans before loading * I get the same errors as you do and my log files grow to 10GB in a matter of minutes. While that happens T1 spans lose synchronization and channels restart everywhere. -- cheers, Bartek Bulzak RDE Solutions Inc. - Montreal, Canada t 514-489-0620 x222 f 514-221-3106 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and callerID
I don't notice it on my TDMoE that is configured as PRI either. Looks like you need to post a bug to the tracker. MATT--- -Original Message- From: Weezey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:33 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and callerID I've been experimenting with the zaptel TDMoE stuff and I've got it all working. Calls go from one asterisk box to the other, with no issues, except they don't bring the callerID along with them. I tried the e&m signalling from the wiki and I thought maybe that had something to do with it, so I just changed it to half fxsks and fxoks and that didn't help me any, I still don't get the callerID of the caller, even if I define it in the outgoing end of the TDMoE in zapata.conf So, is there a trick to it or does callerID information just not go across TDMoE? Thanks ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and callerID
Weezey wrote: So, is there a trick to it or does callerID information just not go across TDMoE? Use PRI signaling on the TDMoE span, not quasi-analog signaling. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE Configuration problems
Kevin Bockman wrote: I'm having some problems getting TDMoE setup for the 1st time. I have a TE405P installed in the main server with an ethernet cross-connection to the secondary machine. (Yes, I know about IAX2 but I want to use TDMoE to simulate using T1s.) I'm using -HEAD from yesterday. On the main machine /etc/zaptel.conf: loadzone = us defaultzone=us dynamic=eth,eth1/00:30:48:84:74:25,24,0 bchan=1-23 dhcan=24 If you loaded wct4xxp before ztd-eth/ztdynamic your channels should be: 1-96 TE405P 97-120 TDMoE *CLI> zap show status Description Alarms IRQbpviol CRC4 T4XXP (PCI) Card 0 Span 1OK 0 0 0 T4XXP (PCI) Card 0 Span 2UNCONFIGUR 0 0 0 T4XXP (PCI) Card 0 Span 3UNCONFIGUR 0 0 0 T4XXP (PCI) Card 0 Span 4UNCONFIGUR 0 0 0 Dynamic 'eth' span at 'eth1/00:30:48:84· RED 0 0 0 Leonardo ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE hangs the machine
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bruno Fontana waxed: > I was trying to use TDMoE and I lasted with two problems. First of all I > can't configure the dynamic span to use CAS signalling but documentation > (by Mark) says that you can use any type of signalling (and this > includes CAS I guess). Well just pick one that works I guess. You aren't limited to T1/E1 d-channel / b-channel ratios, either. Meaning you can create 200 b-channels and still have the signalling over only 1 d-channel. Not that you'll ever be able to push that much over the wire... > My second problem is related that my Linux system crashes frequently > due to ztdynamic and friends. I'm using a 2.4.26 version kernel and > zaptel drivers 0.9.1 (Gentoo distro). I've looked for a solution or a > clue in list archives but there was nothing. > Any ideas?, someone who had a similar problem and have found a solution? I've found it unstable on high loads, in excess of 50 channels between smoking P4s, with or without any zaptel card drivers loaded. I would like to try blaming it on the switch, and possibly the NICs both facing the public network, but it was still 0 hops between boxes. Might have better luck on separate, better ethernet cards over a private network. TDMoE is very noisy: http://www.marko.net/asterisk/archives/0301/0566.html There's an ancient TDMoE howto here: http://www.convergence.com.pk/TDMoE-HOWTO It's old, but so is the code for ztdynamic, so I assume it just works for a lot of people. That or people have dropped it in favor of something like trunking on IAX2. --Chris -- Chris Maj, Rochester cmaj_at_freedomcorpse_dot_com Pronunciation Guide: Maj == May ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE hangs the machine
C. Maj wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004, Bruno Fontana waxed: I was trying to use TDMoE and I lasted with two problems. First of all I can't configure the dynamic span to use CAS signalling but documentation (by Mark) says that you can use any type of signalling (and this includes CAS I guess). Well just pick one that works I guess. You aren't limited to T1/E1 d-channel / b-channel ratios, either. Meaning you can create 200 b-channels and still have the signalling over only 1 d-channel. Not that you'll ever be able to push that much over the wire... My second problem is related that my Linux system crashes frequently due to ztdynamic and friends. I'm using a 2.4.26 version kernel and zaptel drivers 0.9.1 (Gentoo distro). I've looked for a solution or a clue in list archives but there was nothing. Any ideas?, someone who had a similar problem and have found a solution? I've found it unstable on high loads, in excess of 50 channels between smoking P4s, with or without any zaptel card drivers loaded. I would like to try blaming it on the switch, and possibly the NICs both facing the public network, but it was still 0 hops between boxes. Might have better luck on separate, better ethernet cards over a private network. TDMoE is very noisy: http://www.marko.net/asterisk/archives/0301/0566.html There's an ancient TDMoE howto here: http://www.convergence.com.pk/TDMoE-HOWTO It's old, but so is the code for ztdynamic, so I assume it just works for a lot of people. That or people have dropped it in favor of something like trunking on IAX2. --Chris Trunking over IAX2 sounds very interesting, but it can't "tunnel" channels as TDMoE does, does it?. I mean. Do I need Asterisk to pick up the calls and redial or can I pass channels as is. I still need channels to be CAS signaled. -Bruno ___ 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
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE hangs the machine
> Trunking over IAX2 sounds very interesting, but it can't "tunnel" channels as TDMoE does, does it?. I mean. Do I need Asterisk to pick up the calls and redial or can I pass channels as is. I still need channels to be CAS signaled. Its going to work the same either way you go from the dialplan standpoint... TDMoE sucks up bandwidth like mad. TDMoE isn't routable either so it will only work on a bridged connection or the same lan. bkw ___ 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
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE - best signalling method?
> > I'm wondering if perhaps HDLC signalling is too intolerant of the > occasional lost packet and whether one of the other signalling types > would be better. I don't understand the other methods, so I would be > grateful for any advice from those who have used TDMoE successfully. > I would have thought that if you are losing occasional packets then that is the problem you should be focusing on... An unsaturated Ethernet connection should not lose any packets. I'm not sure that any TDM protocol is going to be particularly happy about lost packets. But please enlighten me if you know different! Thanks James ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMOE Badness in kernel...
I'm seeing the same behavior on a Debian system with 2.6.12. I have two systems with Digium Quad T1s in each and I trunk them with TDMoEThis always worked great on 2.4 and up to 2.6.8 but beyond that it either spits out copious amounts of kernel badness and paralyzes the system completely or gives the same results as you mentioned with constant Alarms/Alarm Clears. I've mentioned it on this forum before as well. On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 09:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Has anyone succesfully used TDMoE on Fedora Core 2.6.12+ Kernel versions? > > I'm having the issue that is in the Mantis bug database with badness with > the kernel. > > My Story: > > I can get the dynamic span to come up and show OK in the zttool on both > machines. However i get errors every second (Warning: detected alarm on > channel 1... then channel 2...) > > And then the next second, i get : alarm cleared on channel 1,... channel > 2... etc... > > No call will go through across the link becuase of the alarms. > > It looks as if 2.4 Kernel works, but it would be a lot of work to go back > in time. > > Can anyone give me some direction on this. > > I have setup IAX2 between the two machines, but I would like the ability > to use Dial(Zap/group number/Exten) > > I havent found a solution in reading through the wiki's about doing > something similar with IAX.. i.e (Dial/IAX2/group number/$exten)... There > are some scripts and macros that require you to code variables and check > status of each trunk etc but it would be nice to use a group with IAX, > and in the IAX.conf place iax in groups... (unless i just havent' found > it)... > > Help? > > > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMOE Badness in kernel...
Right... I had seen the multiple issues, on the flip side, the only solution was NOT to use Kernel 2.6.+... So... I'm happy that the behaviour is reproduceable (from what I have seen from my steps, to that of others, and other Distros..) Anyone out there have the magic wand to make it work with 2.6.+? Thanks.. > I'm seeing the same behavior on a Debian system with 2.6.12. > I have two systems with Digium Quad T1s in each and I trunk them with > TDMoEThis always worked great on 2.4 and up to 2.6.8 but beyond that > it either spits out copious amounts of kernel badness and paralyzes the > system completely or gives the same results as you mentioned with > constant Alarms/Alarm Clears. > > I've mentioned it on this forum before as well. > > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 09:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Has anyone succesfully used TDMoE on Fedora Core 2.6.12+ Kernel >> versions? >> >> I'm having the issue that is in the Mantis bug database with badness >> with >> the kernel. >> >> My Story: >> >> I can get the dynamic span to come up and show OK in the zttool on both >> machines. However i get errors every second (Warning: detected alarm on >> channel 1... then channel 2...) >> >> And then the next second, i get : alarm cleared on channel 1,... channel >> 2... etc... >> >> No call will go through across the link becuase of the alarms. >> >> It looks as if 2.4 Kernel works, but it would be a lot of work to go >> back >> in time. >> >> Can anyone give me some direction on this. >> >> I have setup IAX2 between the two machines, but I would like the ability >> to use Dial(Zap/group number/Exten) >> >> I havent found a solution in reading through the wiki's about doing >> something similar with IAX.. i.e (Dial/IAX2/group number/$exten)... >> There >> are some scripts and macros that require you to code variables and check >> status of each trunk etc but it would be nice to use a group with >> IAX, >> and in the IAX.conf place iax in groups... (unless i just havent' found >> it)... >> >> Help? >> >> >> ___ >> --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- >> >> Asterisk-Users mailing list >> Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users >> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
I received some postings back, as I was trying to do the same thing. it' is a problem with Kernel 2.6... 2.4 works fine .. this is the summary I got from reading the posts before. I hope that helps... I dont have the ability to go DOWn in kernel to 2.4.. > I'm going to poll the group one more time on this one. I have posted > this before and didn't get any takers. > > Digium advises that I should just do IAX in place of TDMoE but I don't > have that luxury. I have a very complex dial plan built around the TDMoE > functionality and it would be very difficult/expensive to rewrite it. > This has always worked excellent on 2.4 but now that we need to upgrade > to 2.6 I'm getting all kinds of headaches. I'm willing to pay a > consultant to work this out for me. Please contact me off list if > interested > > The following is my original message: > > "Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c on 2.6.X" > > I'm seeing this on Kernel 2.6.+ implementations, namely Centos 4.1, FC4 > machines while trying to do TDMoE trunks between two machines. > 2.4 Kernel operates fine on the same hardware > > I'm compiling zaptel-1.0.9.2 as per instructions in README.Linux26 + > README.udev. I've also tried CVS head zaptel. > > Here are some references where the issue has been reported before but > I've yet to find a documented solution; > > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-February/091867.html > > http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=5126 > > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I received some postings back, as I was trying to do the same thing. > > it' is a problem with Kernel 2.6... 2.4 works fine .. this is the summary > I got from reading the posts before. > > I hope that helps... I dont have the ability to go DOWn in kernel to 2.4.. > the wiki suggested that it was a problem with softirq.c in the kernel and that this was fixed at some point. What 2.6 version are you running that you have this problem? -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
Hi, I am having the same problem on 2 machines running suse 9.3 kernel 2.6.11.4-20a I was hoping that TDMoE would solve some problem that I am having using IAX2. As IAX2 takes the DTMF outof band the timing of the signal is not quite the same as the original and creates problems for other equipment. Ed Pringle -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 10:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel I received some postings back, as I was trying to do the same thing. it' is a problem with Kernel 2.6... 2.4 works fine .. this is the summary I got from reading the posts before. I hope that helps... I dont have the ability to go DOWn in kernel to 2.4.. > I'm going to poll the group one more time on this one. I have posted > this before and didn't get any takers. > > Digium advises that I should just do IAX in place of TDMoE but I don't > have that luxury. I have a very complex dial plan built around the TDMoE > functionality and it would be very difficult/expensive to rewrite it. > This has always worked excellent on 2.4 but now that we need to upgrade > to 2.6 I'm getting all kinds of headaches. I'm willing to pay a > consultant to work this out for me. Please contact me off list if > interested > > The following is my original message: > > "Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c on 2.6.X" > > I'm seeing this on Kernel 2.6.+ implementations, namely Centos 4.1, FC4 > machines while trying to do TDMoE trunks between two machines. > 2.4 Kernel operates fine on the same hardware > > I'm compiling zaptel-1.0.9.2 as per instructions in README.Linux26 + > README.udev. I've also tried CVS head zaptel. > > Here are some references where the issue has been reported before but > I've yet to find a documented solution; > > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-February/091867.html > > http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=5126 > > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:26 -0700, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I received some postings back, as I was trying to do the same thing. > > > > it' is a problem with Kernel 2.6... 2.4 works fine .. this is the summary > > I got from reading the posts before. > > > > I hope that helps... I dont have the ability to go DOWn in kernel to 2.4.. > > > > the wiki suggested that it was a problem with softirq.c in the kernel > and that this was fixed at some point. What 2.6 version are you running > that you have this problem? I've seen this on just about everything 2.6.9 and above and up to 2.6.13. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
2.6.12 > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I received some postings back, as I was trying to do the same thing. >> >> it' is a problem with Kernel 2.6... 2.4 works fine .. this is the >> summary >> I got from reading the posts before. >> >> I hope that helps... I dont have the ability to go DOWn in kernel to >> 2.4.. >> > > the wiki suggested that it was a problem with softirq.c in the kernel > and that this was fixed at some point. What 2.6 version are you running > that you have this problem? > > -- > Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel > UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 > US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 > FreeWorldDialup: 635378 > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
2.6.13.4 which digium staff recommended. 2.6.14 both fail ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE and Badness in Kernel
Hello, There is a company that does have a strong interest in seeing TDMoE work well with asterisk and the 2.6 linux kernel tree, Red Fone who has a T1/E1 bridge appliance that works over TDMoE with Asterisk. Maybe you should contact them and see if they have any ideas: http://www.red-fone.com/ MATT--- On 11/3/05, Franz Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2.6.13.4 which digium staff recommended. > 2.6.14 > > both fail > ___ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE emulates a T-1= Is there a product tosimulate a PRI trunk? (Robert Goodyear)
Does the TDMoE only allow one "T1" per segment? James Taylor MetroTel 3505 Summerhill Road Suite 11 Texarkana, Tx 75503 903-793-1956 Free VOIP & Telecom ads: http://ads.metrotel.net www.metrotel.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of M O Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:15 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE emulates a T-1= Is there a product tosimulate a PRI trunk? (Robert Goodyear) Robert, > Is there a product to simulate a PRI trunk? (Robert > Goodyear) TDMoE emulates a T1. ;) Once the TDMoE link is up, Asterisk just sees 24-lines that appear to be a T1 instead of having to deal with all of the complexities of VoIP. This is useful, since probably 75% of the utility of VoIP is really just the fact that it can run over a network. It's also handy because it unifies the flexibility and cost-savings of a Ethernet with the telephony-friendly aspects of a T1 (alarm codes, bundling trunks, channelization) TDMoE Mini-HOWTO http://voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk%20TDMoE Sincerely, SoftwareRadioGuy __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDMoE emulates a T-1= Is there a product tosimulate a PRI trunk? (Robert Goodyear)
On Fri, 13 May 2005, jltaylor wrote: > Does the TDMoE only allow one "T1" per segment? You can add an index to have several TDMoE links and thus several virtual T1/E1 links between two computers. TMDoE is mostly used to provide an interconnect with a low latency over ethernet. Peter ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
