asterisk users - Jan 2005 - SPA-3000 as FXO Gateway for * (Was: Qs about FXO/FXS cards)

Thanks Rich,

I have an SPA-3000 laying around, so I will attempt to set it up in a
little more conventional manner (although your method looks like a
winner for a home test PBX). Would you mind posting or PM your current
config to me, maybe screenshots if you PM. If I start with that it will
take less time to get to the point where the SPA-3000 is a true FXO-FXS
gateway for *. I will be happy to post screen shots for others on our
website after I figure it out and test it, assuming it performs well.

The lack of a reliable and inexpensive FXO interface for * rules it out
in one of the largest potential markets, small business PBX systems. The
lack of re-invite proxy capability rules it out for very large
deployments (of course there is SER to help out with those). At least
for us right now our * deployments are limited to SMEs with PRIs for
PSTN interfaces. I hate to rely on eBay goods for deployments, while the
prices are great it always seems I eventually end up paying full pop
because an item fails and there is not eBay inventory or spares on hand.

I have no issues posting configs that I have spent time on, as it seems
they can always be improved by the community and we all benefit.

Damon 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com 
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of 
> Rich Adamson
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:11 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Qs about FXO/FXS cards
> 
> > I have been wondering if the spa 3000 would make a good 
> PSTN interface 
> > for an * box where POTS is the only available (or 
> practical) service.
> > Have you implemented this? Are there any limitations or 
> known issues?
> > The SPA2000 sure seems to work well as an ATA, even had 
> good luck with 
> > fax over IP using g.711 and the fax detection in zaptel and the SPA 
> > (turns off echo cancel dynamically when the CNG tone is heard I 
> > believe).
> > 
> > Can you use the FXS and FXO ports at the same time, for two 
> separate 
> > calls via * ?
> 
> Yes, it works fine.
>  
> > The SPA 3000 is small enough that a half dozen of them would be 
> > manageable, any more than that and your are usually in the T1 price 
> > range for service anyways.
> 
> The down-side to the spa3k is that its rather difficult to 
> configure since they've provided so many different config 
> options and their user manual does not address much beyond a 
> basic config.
> 
> For my home use, I inserted the spa3k into the pstn line in 
> such a way as to avoid remedial spousal training. :) All 
> house phones are attached to the fxs (line 1) port.
> 
> This specific config supports:
> - all outgoing fxs -> pstn calls are passed through to the fxo port
>   without asterisk being involved. (eg, avoids 911 and 
> training issues)
> - all outgoing fxs calls prefixed with a "8" are routed to * for
>   completion (regardless of what follows the 8).
> - all outgoing fxs calls matching "3xxx" (* extensions) are
routed to
>   * for completion.
> - the fxs port was configured to register with *, and 
> therefore the fxs
>   port is also an exten from asterisk's perspective (eg, * exten's
can
>   dial the fxs port)
> - distinctive ringing is implemented as:
>    - incoming pstn calls (via fxo port) ring normal
>    - incoming voip & * calls use a distinctive ring
> - the fxo port was configured to register with * (different creditials
>   from the fxs port), and therefore asterisk can place calls through
>   the spa3k fxo port.
> - I specifically did _not_ want * involved with incoming pstn (fxo)
>   calls (in this case), but rather wanted those to ring through to the
>   fxs port directly. (Avoids complaints when care and feeding *)
> - the spa3k is running v2.0.11(GWg)
> 
> The only difference between the above and using the spa3k as 
> an inbound pstn gw is the definitions for the pstn (fxo) 
> port. If you dig through the voxilla.com forum postings, 
> you'll see where that also has been implemented. However, 
> that fxo -> * connection is even less clear. I had that 
> working several months ago, but that wasn't my specific 
> objective so I didn't attempt to document it.
> 
> The problem with most of these external gateways (regardless 
> of vendor) is that it almost requires a knowledgable person 
> with a packet sniffer and a lot of trial & error mucking 
> around to find the appropriate combination of parameters to 
> accomplish a specific task. In my specific implementation 
> above, the key turned out to be extensive use of dialplan 
> strings that were not very well documented.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>