<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>If your underlying network is okay to support fax-passthrough (meaning
rather low latency/jitter), than most of these platforms will work okay for
fax. ATAs seem to be the sole exception, as they do not perform fax
detection very reliably in my experience. If you are needing to support
fax-relay of some sort, then the VG224/FXS port adapter seems the clear choice
to me, though the VG248 has some capability in this area as
well.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>Bottom line, trying to support transmissions that are regularly in excess
of 19.2 kbps put out by a high-speed fax (Super-G3) is difficult to support
when you have to repackage the analog signal over IP... regardless of the
platform and transport type you choose. This is just my
experience. Cisco is continously improving support for fax-relay, but in
practice I've found that fax-passthrough is still the most universally reliable
way to get the job done.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>Without getting into the numerous specifics of where each platform stops,
I would rank them in loose capability for fax/modem transmissions as follows,
from least to most:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>ATAs</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>VG248</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>VG224</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>FXS adapters in late model routers/modules (i.e. ISR or NM-HD-2V)
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=022505902-01122006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-- Fred Nielsen</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Lelio
Fulgenzi<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:41 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> [cisco-voip] fax problems with FXS
as well?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I know that people have been having problems with faxing and
VG224/VG248 and ATAs ..... but are these problems averted by using FXS ports?
The problems I am referring to is the inability of these machines to talk to
other high speed faxes (which I guess are auto negotiating).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Lelio
Fulgenzi, B.A.<BR>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1<BR>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX
(JNHN)<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<BR>"I can eat fifty eggs." "Nobody can eat fifty
eggs."</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>