Home » Forums » Community Edition » Trunks

Sangoma U100 USB FXO

RonV
Posts: 19
 Member Since:
2007-05-31
Submitted by RonV on Sun, 06/21/2009 - 6:16pm.

I have a client in the city of Chicago were I deployed a pure IP 4 line Trixbox PBX using voicepulse. To cover the 911 requirement he has a land line on his fax machine. Well last week the city demanded that all telsets when dialing 911 must connect to Chicago's 911 service and even the stickers that I put on the phones to use the fax line for 911 service would not be in compliance.

I really don't want to deal with PCI or PCI-X FXO cards due to interrupt issues also since the mother board I used doesn't have any free slots unless I take out the redundant network card. So I was looking at the Sangoma U100 two port USB FXO dongle.

I was hoping there were some folks that have real world experience of installing the Sangoma drivers and what type of trunk appearance would show up in Trixbox. I have never used Sangoma hardware before but from what I have read there is some type of installation/configuration order that must be done properly.

Thanks....

‹ Trixbox Trunk to Mitel Will this card work for Trixbox, and is it a good price ›

&nbsp

SkykingOH
Posts: 9538
 Member Since:
2007-12-17
Would it not be simpler to
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 11:04pm

Would it not be simpler to use an external gateway? Linksys and Grandstream make easy to configure gateways.

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"


&nbsp

RonV
Posts: 19
 Member Since:
2007-05-31
I did check out the
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 8:14am

I did check out the grandstream external gateway vs the U100. I would like to keep everthing in one cabinet if possible and only support one PSTN line.

The cost of the U100 for about $115 vs. an entry point of about $200 for a external gatway makes this solution cost effective and also this looks like just a Zap channel which would make configuration a bit easier.

I am open to any solution and meets my customers requirements...thanks for the info...


&nbsp

SkykingOH
Posts: 9538
 Member Since:
2007-12-17
the U100 is a Zap device, if
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 8:27am

the U100 is a Zap device, if you feel you can't build the drivers (which you should be able to do if you are in the business of supporting these systems) I am sure Sangoma will go into the system and do it for you or talk you through it.

I don't like the idea of a USB dongle in production.

The Grandstream gateway is web based and very easy to program.

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"


&nbsp

Obzorg
Posts: 55
 Member Since:
2009-06-23
Sangoma vs. Grandstream vs. Linksys vs. ?
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 9:43am

Are you talking about the Grandstream HT-503? I just got one yesterday and have been less than thrilled with it. I love the fact that the FXS port supports rotary dialing but its FXO port is nearly useless to me.

Unless I'm missing something, there are a couple of inherent limitations in using the HT-503 for a PSTN trunk:

1) If you want Asterisk to receive inbound calls, you have to enable anonymous incoming SIP calls.
2) If you want Caller ID, you have to set it to wait two rings before sending the call to Asterisk.

I bought the device to replace the crappy X100P clone I'm using right now. The X100P works for the most part except it misses incoming Caller ID about 30% of the time and the sound quality is kind of crappy.

I can understand having an aversion to using USB dongles in production but for my situation, this is looking like a tempting option... especially since it is advertised as a solution for my exact scenario.

If there is something better that you would recommend for an FXO port that would be cheaper than the Sangoma and doesn't require an insecure kludge like the HT-503 does in order to configure it as a trunk, I would appreciate your input.


&nbsp

SkykingOH
Posts: 9538
 Member Since:
2007-12-17
Points off target - Clarification
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 11:10am
Quote:
Are you talking about the Grandstream HT-503

No I was speaking of the GXW4104, I know it's four ports however it is a decent gateway

Quote:
If you want Asterisk to receive inbound calls, you have to enable anonymous incoming SIP calls

That's not true you can setup your trunk with only the IP address

Quote:
I bought the device to replace the crappy X100P clone I'm using right now.

If you have the slot available why not run a better PCI card, you said cheaper than Sangoma so that would be an Openvox? If you have the dongle and it's what you want practice building the drivers on a test system.

Quote:
doesn't require an insecure kludge

Anonymous term seems to trip people up, it's not insecure. That would be saying that your phone is insecure because you allow people to call you without a password! It's anonymous inbound, you still have to set a route for it and there is no access to the dial plan. Many people publish their SIP URI IE: SIP:skyking@blahblahblah.com

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"


&nbsp

Obzorg
Posts: 55
 Member Since:
2009-06-23
Cards and Configs
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 12:13pm
Quote:
That's not true you can setup your trunk with only the IP address

I spent 3 hours searching last night and could not find information on how to configure this without enabling Anonymous SIP. I guess I have more searching to do.

Quote:
If you have the slot available why not run a better PCI card, you said cheaper than Sangoma so that would be an Openvox?

I have looked at the OpenVox and was certainly considering this option. I only need one FXO and when configured with one FXO daughtercard, the OpenVox is cheaper than the Sangoma. Sangoma does have RPMs for trixbox 2.6.2 but it looks like I would have to roll my own for 2.8 at this point... which defeats the purpose of using a pre-packaged solution like TB in the first place.

The frustrating part of all this is finding reliable reviews of the various hardware options. I'm not setting this up for a business. I'm just a hobbyist who enjoys tinkering with phones which is why I'm being so "cheap" about it. It seems like most of the people around here who really know what they're talking about tend to work with higher-priced hardware and because of this, don't have a lot of input on or recommendations for cheap stuff.

If I can't get the HT-503 working to my satisfaction, I'll take your advice and grab an A400p with an FXO daughtercard.

Quote:
That would be saying that your phone is insecure because you allow people to call you without a password!

You're correct. There are semantic issues here that can cause confusion. When I say that Anonymous SIP is insecure, I have my own definition of 'insecure'. I don't want incoming calls from outside my defined trunks. I'm obviously new to this and am well prepared to be told that I'm wrong about this but the way I understood the configuration settings outlined in another thread was that you set up an Inbound Route with a DID number and then configure the HT-503 for unconditional forwarding to that DID number on the Asterisk box. In order for this to work, Anonymous SIP has to be enabled which means that anyone could, theoretically, send calls to my box and, if they chose the right DID, it would ring through to whatever extensions I had defined in the inbound route. I don't expect this to be a serious problem right now but I know that SIP spam isn't too far off.

Thanks for your help!


&nbsp

SkykingOH
Posts: 9538
 Member Since:
2007-12-17
Quote: SIP spam isn't too
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 2:54pm
Quote:
SIP spam isn't too far off.

SIP Spam is already here, but so is unsolicited calls. I simply don;t want to loose the convenience of people being able to dial my SIP URI:

Quote:
I spent 3 hours searching last night

Very little is documented in the fashion of setting up xxx device. If you learn how to configure trunks properly you can setup any device. It makes life much easier.

In this case all you have to do is setup a peer (trunk) that matches the IP address of the handytone. It will then forward to the correct context for inbound route processing.

Quote:
It seems like most of the people around here who really know what they're talking about tend to work with higher-priced hardware

Sure this isn't a hobby for most of us (not to say we don't enjoy doing it). When you do it for a living there is always hardware laying around to build extra systems for home and friends. I also scour eBay for deals.

Quote:
I'll take your advice and grab an A400p with an FXO daughtercard.

Make sure you buy it from Huebs73, you can catch him on the forums.

One last statement, this being a hobby you should learn how to build drivers. You could have had this going in the time all of these exchanges of gone on! The satisfaction of not being at the mercy of the distribution mangers and knowing how to install and build Linux software is priceless.

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"


&nbsp

andrew
Posts: 1472
 Member Since:
2006-05-30
I also agree with the 503
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 3:45pm

I also agree with the 503 solution. $55?? How can you beat that. Also have you looked into e911 services? They work really well now.

http://www.888voipstore.com/grandstream-handytone-503-pr-18712.ht...

1. You don't need anonymous SIP. SkykingOH has the answer.
2. a internal card will also wait 2 rings before it answers to get caller ID. The caller ID is sent between the first and second ring so there is no way around this.


&nbsp

Obzorg
Posts: 55
 Member Since:
2009-06-23
Quote: You don't need
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 4:56pm
Quote:
You don't need anonymous SIP. SkykingOH has the answer.

Yep. More digging and more reading and I was able to get incoming calls to work without Anonymous SIP. Thanks again on that.

Quote:
a internal card will also wait 2 rings before it answers to get caller ID. The caller ID is sent between the first and second ring so there is no way around this.

With the X100P, it starts ringing the extensions in my ring group before the second ring begins. With the 503, my extensions don't start ringing until right before the third ring begins which means that the Caller ID info doesn't display on my extension phones until just before the 4th ring. I know I'm being nitpicky but that just feels like too long of a wait to me.

Quote:
One last statement, this being a hobby you should learn how to build drivers.

It's not that I don't know how. My Linux roots go back to the pre-1.0 days... before modprobe... when new hardware meant recompiling the whole kernel which, on a 386, meant long, long waits (and lots of coffee). I'm just getting lazy in my old age. Heh.


&nbsp

RonV
Posts: 19
 Member Since:
2007-05-31
Thanks Scott
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 5:02pm

Scott,

On the U100 and the Sangoma drivers...I have no problem compiling device level stuff under Linux.

As to USB I agree that they can have issues in Linux but when I look at some of the other companies out there that are driving 48 port USB connected channel banks I have to say the USB under Linux has finally come into prime time. I guess its all about the hardware and driver support. Heck even getting USB UPS signals works without hickup's today. Two / three years ago I would have stayed away from USB.

I do like the GXW4104 but probly what I will do is buy a U100 for my POC system in my lab for validation, thats what labs are for. I have 30 days to correct this issue at his shop and if I can't get the U100 working I'll fall back on the GXW4104.

Thanks for all the comments.


&nbsp

SkykingOH
Posts: 9538
 Member Since:
2007-12-17
Quote: It's not that I don't
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 8:59pm
Quote:
It's not that I don't know how. My Linux roots go back to the pre-1.0 days... before modprobe...

That explains why you are such a fast learner. I cut my Open Source teeth on FreeBSD, you had to compile the kernel for every driver also. My Unix roots go back to System V in the early 80's

--

Scott

aka "Skyking"


&nbsp

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.