Apologies for top posting all... Mobile device responses and all... Excuse perceived brevity et al
My comments and objections, to the general consensus that Asterisk is the way forward, are based on several years of working with it. As I've mentioned before, I generally try not to pass comment on specific products because a number of my customers use a variety of products to fulfil a business need/function. To blithely pass judgement on things without consideration of individual business cases would just be unprofessional. That said... My objections to asterisk are based on direct experience that using it as the core function of a service is nigh-on impossible to build as a stable and generally functional high availability platform. Asterisk lacked the capability (this may have changed and if so, someone, please direct me to the relevant documentation that supports your assertions) to function as a high availability and performant (IMO performant = >5k registrations with subscribe and notifies etc + >50calls/sec) cluster capable of providing type 2/type 4 services which complies with the mandates for OFCOM General Condition 4 (and subsequently section 102 and 105 (I think) of the telecommunications act 2003). I agree, asterisk has a place... It is not however at the core of a multi-tenant platform marketed as a cloud (urg) replacement for POTS services. ~ Rich (Benevolent telecoms monkey) On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, 21:44 Gavin Henry, <ghe...@suretec.co.uk> wrote: > > However, it's worth noting that if you're going to be using Asterisk and > selling the product to your customers who will in turn rely solely on your > product for telephony, you need to make sure you're very aware and up to > speed on the legal aspects. > > > > I would replace the word Asterisk with the words "software based product" > in the above paragraph. > > > From what I've seen implemented, read up on and inevitably replaced, > it's incredibly difficult to build a solution using Asterisk that would be > able to survive the test of general condition 4.[2] > > > > ^^^ This applies to any software stack solution. It is your own due > diligence to test and adopt any solution. Whether it's Asterisk or not. It > is fair to say that there have a lot of bad Asterisk solutions out there, > but it's not supposed to be used for everything. It's usually provided as > the A in a LAMP stack but there's so much more needed if selling a landline > replacement service, as Richard points out. > > > Forget the shiny web UI, the billing interfaces, systems operations, > etc; if you can't maintain an call and lose half your network, you're > setting yourself up for a number of very big (and potentially expensive) > headaches. > > > > Again, not specific to Asterisk or its known weaknesses - > http://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology > > I'm the opposite. Asterisk has its place and should only be bashed when > you've experienced it. I think Richard has experienced it though :) > > Gavin. > > -- > Kind Regards, > > Gavin Henry. > Managing Director. > > Winner of the Best Business ITSP (Medium Enterprise) 2016! > http://www.surevoip.co.uk/2016-best-provider >
