Before I go ahead and spend $40.000 on a Cisco 5400, just because my clients need T.38 faxing, I want to ask the community if there is any chance of having Asterisk receive G729+T.38 and sending the call via Zaptel to its final destination. Any answer will be appreciated. Federico
We decide to build a HylaFAX server sharing the PRI's through a Channel Bank, and send all the faxes through that system, and forget to try anything through Asterisk. We're already tired of the complainings from customers that never can send faxes, or sometimes some pages. Regards, Carlos Alperin Calperin@senecacom.net -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Federico Alves Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:43 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [Asterisk-Users] T.38 Faxing Before I go ahead and spend $40.000 on a Cisco 5400, just because my clients need T.38 faxing, I want to ask the community if there is any chance of having Asterisk receive G729+T.38 and sending the call via Zaptel to its final destination. Any answer will be appreciated. Federico _______________________________________________ --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
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:12:21AM -0400, Rosario Pingaro wrote:> for the community, I think it is important to have at least t.38 > passthrough first then the other devolpments. > > In this way t.38 can be easly spreaded and catch up more supporters.What do you mean more supporters. t.38 is only *reliable* way for transporting fax over ip. Fax over g711 is pure luck...
>> for the community, I think it is important to have at least t.38 >> passthrough first then the other devolpments. >> >> In this way t.38 can be easly spreaded and catch up more supporters. >> > > What do you mean more supporters. t.38 is only *reliable* way for > transporting > fax over ip. Fax over g711 is pure luck...apart from t.37, that is, and t.37 is IMHO a far more delicate solution... but then, finding an ATA that supports t.37 is even harder than finding one that supports t.38 roy
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 12:38:40PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:> >>for the community, I think it is important to have at least t.38 > >>passthrough first then the other devolpments. > >> > >>In this way t.38 can be easly spreaded and catch up more supporters. > >> > > > >What do you mean more supporters. t.38 is only *reliable* way for > >transporting > >fax over ip. Fax over g711 is pure luck... > > apart from t.37, that is, and t.37 is IMHO a far more delicate > solution... > but then, finding an ATA that supports t.37 is even harder than > finding one that supports t.38ok, I ment to said "real time" fax over ip....