alternative to voip gateways

Colton Conor colton.conor at gmail.com
Mon May 4 13:44:45 UTC 2020


Adtran has a built in web interface too. I it slow, but it does work. I
like CLI better.

Overall, the SIP configuration is easy, and ideal for large setups. You
define a sip trunk (not system only supports 1 unfortunately) and then each
port you just add the sip username and password to that port.

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:23 AM Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:

> The Calix and Occam systems are web based. I find the Occam interface
> easier, but I've used it longer.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>
> *Cc: *nanog at nanog.org
> *Sent: *Monday, May 4, 2020 5:06:28 AM
> *Subject: *Re: alternative to voip gateways
>
> Thanks, this seems far more cost effective.
> But what about configuration, is it easy enough to configure?
>
> I'm told it must be simple to config and understand and if possible
> web based (im told because I may not always be available they want
> their basic IT staff to be able to understand and if need be make
> changes - which that alone scares me none of them understand anything
> other than windows)
>
> Thanks for all the suggestions
>
> On 5/3/20, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> > If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s,
> you'd
> > be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need
> most
> > of a rack to do it.
> >
> >
> > Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better
> solution.
> > Just throwing the idea out there.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >
> > Midwest Internet Exchange
> >
> > The Brothers WISP
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards at gmail.com>
> > To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin at gmail.com>
> > Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> > Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
> >
> > The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind
> > the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the
> > furtherest is just under 1 mile
> >
> > Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to
> > install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs
> > 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k -
> > since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
> >
> > On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet
> but
> >>
> >> you will lose CID before that.
> >>
> >> As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have
> >> particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your
> application
> >>
> >> if cheap is what makes sense.
> >>
> >> My $.02
> >>
> >> Jeremy Austin
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from
> other
> >>>
> >>> vendors.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Andrey
> >>>
> >>> > 2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards at gmail.com>
> >>> написал(а):
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote
> >>> > village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they
> go
> >>> >
> >>> > nowhere past the MDF.
> >>> >
> >>> > The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the
> workers
> >>> >
> >>> > because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that
> >>> > business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
> >>> >
> >>> > So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
> pairs.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass
> >>> > through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare
> >>> > R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this
> >>> > works.
> >>> >
> >>> > OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go
> somewhere
> >>> >
> >>> > that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either
> grandstream
> >>> >
> >>> > 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so
> >>> > theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used
> >>> > because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
> >>> >
> >>> > But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is
> not
> >>> >
> >>> > a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more
> >>> > cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have
> >>> > an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a
> bunch
> >>> >
> >>> > of individual gateways.
> >>> >
> >>> > This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing
> on
> >>> >
> >>> > a large scale.
> >>> > Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my
> method
> >>> >
> >>> > acceptable or not for such a project size?
> >>> >
> >>> > most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where
> >>> > gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all
> >>> > our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the
> >>> > beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats
> >>> > not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
> >>> >
> >>> > thoughts?
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Jeremy Austin
> >> jhaustin at gmail.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200504/3bb28fd6/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list