Hi List, I have stupid question but I want to know it. Why we use the PRI insted of BRI ? Just for the sake of number of lines or any thing else ? And why SIP is used for making calls rather then IAX? Even we know IAX takes 1 channel for making calls? ----- Thanks and regards Virendra Bhati +91-9172341457 Asterisk Reader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110529/f591743f/attachment.htm>
Sunday, May 29, 2011, 10:57:00 AM, virendra wrote:> I have stupid question but I want to know it. Why we use the PRI insted of > BRI ? Just for the sake of number of lines or any thing else ?Yes, because of much more channels. But if you need only 2 or 4 channels BRI is cheaper. From 10-12 channels becomes PRI cheaper. And the other reason: if you use traditional channel banks instead of VoIP phones that uses PRI also.> And why SIP is used for making calls rather then IAX? Even we know IAX takes > 1 channel for making calls?Maybe because of almost every VoIP phones knows SIP. I personally didn't meet any IAX VoIP phone. -- Best regards, Gergo mailto:csibra at gmail.com
On Sun, 29 May 2011, virendra bhati wrote:> Hi List, > > I have stupid question but I want to know it. Why we use the PRI insted of > BRI ? Just for the sake of number of lines or any thing else ?It probably depends on your country. In mainland europe (or maybe just Germany), ISDN2e (BRI) is very popular - not uncommon in home installations too. In the UK, it's almost the standard in small businesses - the migration path seems to be from a single line to 3 lines sharing the same number to ISDN2e... There was a push in the UK to support BRI in the home (~10 years back, under the name Home Highway), but it came at a time when ADSL was almost upon us, and BT in their infinite wisdom removed a lot of the ISDN features that make it actually useful... I don't think BRI ever caught on in the US - It was analogue or PRI (or channelised/fractional T1 or whatever it's called) Probably made it much easier for the telcos to support (and afford)> And why SIP is used for making calls rather then IAX? Even we know IAX takes > 1 channel for making calls?SIP is an open standard that's been around since the late 90's. IAX, which is also open and free was only just accepted as a standard last year, but even so, there's inertia. Very few phone manufacturers are using it - why should they, when they've been using SIP for years, and the same PBX that works with IAX also works with SIP... (And does any other PBX support IAX yet?) Gordon
On 05/29/2011 04:57 AM, virendra bhati wrote:> And why SIP is used for making calls rather then IAX? Even we know > IAX takes 1 channel for making calls?IAX is an Asterisk-centered phenomenon and has no currency outside of it. In the broader VoIP world, interoperability with a wide range of equipment is mandatory. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/