[cisco-voip] ATA versus VG224

[Voll, Scott]

ATA's can become problematic.  They don't support anything but fax
passthrough.  If you have any super G3 (33.6) fax machines you have to
dumb them down to make them work and ECM has to be disable.  If you can
afford the VG go VG.  IF you can afford Pots lines, go Pots lines.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Scott

 

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TechGuy
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:48 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] ATA versus VG224

 

Can anyone share with me some benefits of using a VG224 over a bunch of
ATA's?  Particularly interested in the pro's of a VG224 for fax machines
over the use of ATA's?

 



 

On 12/5/05, Ortiz, Carlos <CORTIZ at broward.org> wrote: 

The VG224's work really well with MGCP.  The only issue I have had is
that there is a bug with AAA on the VG224 that is addressed in newer
versions of code, but that would require a memory upgrade.  The best
thing I can tell you about them is that I installed one about 1 year ago
and another about 9 months ago.  Haven't touched them since..... :-) 

 

 

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TechGuy
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:51 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] ATA versus VG224

 

Can someone share with me thoughts on ATA's versus VG224.  I have heard
that the VG224 is a little more reliable and less problamatic then the
ATA's 

 

I believe the VG224 is a little more flexible in how you can configure
it?  Mainly looking for something to handle a bunch of fax machines.
Looking for the most reliable MGCP solution. 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20051205/ebbb62a9/attachment.html