[cisco-voip] Fire alarms

[Fuermann, Jason]

That mode was 4+2 if anyone was interested.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Fuermann, Jason
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:07 PM
To: 'cisco-voip at puck.nether.net'
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fire alarms

Thanks for everyone's replies. For reference, the problem was the remote end was using DTMF to communicate to the head and the gateway was not spitting out the DTMF fast enough. The solution was to switch it to a mode that didn't use DTMF.

As to NFPA 72, we have reviewed the code and believe that VOIP does not compromise our compliance

-----Original Message-----
From: c3voip [mailto:c3voip at nc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:30 AM
To: 'Madziarczyk, Jonathan'; Fuermann, Jason; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Fire alarms

Are you using the VG224 as an H.323 gateway?  I have had much better success
setting up fire alarm dialers as H.323 voice-ports.

-C

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Madziarczyk,
Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Fuermann, Jason; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Fire alarms

I looked at this at one point and didn't find a lot of support for this.

>From a technical standpoint:  You need to find out if you're using a
reverse polarity system or a dial-out system (the reverse-polarity will
need a dialer added to it).  After that both systems should work just
fine (provided the dialer isn't using pulse, at which point you'll have
to make sure the vg224 or ata 186 will support pulse instead of tone).

>From a legal standpoint: Essentially there's a national fire alarm code
out there (NFPA72) that requires all equipment between the alarm and the
receiver (alarm service or 911) to be UL listed as an alarm system panel
device...or something similar.

I gave up at that point because I didn't think I would be able to prove
or verify my vg224/ata186/routers/switches/ as UL listed.  Not that I
can prove that my telco carrier is UL listed, but if there's ever a
lawsuit I'd have a much easier job defending by using the Telco than
myself.

You might be able to find something called "Formal Interpretation
72-99-1" (Reference: 8.5.4 and 8.5.4.12) that deal specifically with
packet-switched networks.

If you find something that gives you more hope, by all means PLEASE
share it.  I'd love to get more lines off of our telco and onto VoIP.

JM

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Fuermann, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:32 PM
To: 'cisco-voip at puck.nether.net'
Subject: [cisco-voip] Fire alarms

Does anybody have any fire alarms running across vg224's? We have
Firelight and Silent Knight dialers that seem to be working
intermittently.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip