[160673] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Any experience with Grandstream VoIP equipment ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benny Amorsen)
Mon Feb 11 09:55:15 2013
From: Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>
To: Nathan Anderson <nathana@fsr.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:55:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <C12CA40900F4E0448A2D4E66DFA6A59B17ECCE5328@Demekin.FSI.local>
(Nathan Anderson's message of "Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:13:29 -0800")
Cc: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Nathan Anderson <nathana@fsr.com> writes:
> Have you played around with the T.38 support on the SPA-1XX line?
> Historically, it has been difficult to find a reasonably-priced,
> bare-bones (1 FXS, no built-in router) ATA that also happens to do
> T.38 well. PAP2T had no T.38 support at all.
T.38 support was the primary reason for choosing that model. Before the
SPA-112, we used SPA-2102 which had the major disadvantage of being a
router. It meant we had to log in to the box to enable provisioning on
the WAN interface (and just hope that no one plugged a cable into the
LAN).
The SPA-112 is a much better solution.
> SPA-112 price looks good, so I'm wondering what the catch is.
So far only one bug found: Sudden 90% fax call failure rate in one
specific setup with 4 ATAs, whereas all the ATAs used by other customers
continued to work fine. Problem solved with firmware 1.3.1.
/Benny
