<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    Whoa, slow down there.  You mentioned "the majority of deployed ATAs
    seems to use T.38 v0...".  I simply asked what devices you knew used
    the newer standards.<br>
    <br>
    The reason no one is talking about it at the level you are
    requesting, is because most of us probably have not heard of them. 
    We are in the trenches using readily available equipment, and if in
    the configuration of those devices requires us to match versions of
    the protocols you are describing, then we would include our
    experiences in this discussion.  The thread owner stated two
    devices, and we replied with our experience in those.<br>
    <br>
    We do not make the standards, we make them work.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    On 12/16/2010 10:32 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC961D4FECFE3F@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6036" name="GENERATOR">
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">The discussion
            of interoperability issues concerning fax/modem in
            particular and PSTN X/modem calls in general was already
            topic in the past two years in the correspondent experts
            groups, like</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- ITU-T Q.14/16</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- SIP Forum
            FoIP Task Force</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- ANSI TR 30.1</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- ETSI TISPAN
            WG3</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- i3 Forum</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- MSF TC
            meeting and</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">- IETF MMUSIC
            (concerning the usage of revised SDP Offer/Answer in SIP for
            T.38, V.152).</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"></span> </div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">There isn't
            much value in repeating the same discussions in other groups
            again.</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"></span> </div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">Starting point
            for product implementations is to point out their standard
            compliance primarily against the recommendations by the
            correspondent technology owners, i.e. ITU-T Q.14/16 in case
            of T.38 and V.152 and IETF MMUSIC in case of SDP O/A (via
            SIP).</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"><font
            size="2" color="#800000" face="Trebuchet MS">NGN / IMS
            compliant products on top must refer to 3GPP, ETSI TISPAN,
            etc standards.</font></span></div>
      <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="781432316-16122010"></span> </div>
      <br>
      <blockquote dir="ltr" style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;
        border-left: 2px solid rgb(128, 0, 0); margin-right: 0px;">
        <div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr" lang="en-us"
          align="left">
          <hr tabindex="-1"> <font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
            <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>
            [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Lee
            Riemer<br>
            <b>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 16:01<br>
            <b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a><br>
            <b>Subject:</b> Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP<br>
          </font><br>
        </div>
        Can you list some devices that use the other versions and
        standards you mention?<br>
        <br>
        On 12/15/2010 11:46 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
        <blockquote
cite="mid:5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC961D4FE529CF@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com"
          type="cite">
          <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6036" name="GENERATOR">
          <style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
          <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">This
                discussion is just at the surface.</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">If
                you talk about fax over IP, then you should include the
                T.38 version, and there are 6 versions so far (T.38 v0
                to v5).</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">The
                majority of deployed ATA's seems to use T.38 v0 from
                year 1998, which is an issue.</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">The
                latest one is T.38 v5 (09/2010).</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"></span></font> </div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">If
                you talk about G.711 pass-through, then you should again
                discriminate between</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">a)
                V.152 VBDoIP with G.711 as VBD codec and</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">b)
                pseudo-VBDoIP using G.711.</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"></span></font> </div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">The
                first one has a clear indication as VBD codec in the
                signalling plane (like SIP, H.248, H.323, etc), which
                allows to distinguish G.711 as audio codec and G.711 in
                VBD mode.</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">The
                second one is just a mess ("G.711 pass-through") due to
                the merge of audio with VBD (... and different media
                configurations).</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"></span></font> </div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">All
                the requirements for FoIP and VBDoIP are e.g. summarized
                by <font size="3" color="#000000" face="Times New
                  Roman"><strong>ETSI TR 183 072 V3.1.1 (2010-09), </strong>Emulation
                  Services for PSTN Modem Calls.</font></span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"><font
                  size="3" color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">Which
                  talks also about the interop issue.</font></span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"><font
                  size="3" color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">And
                  one root cause are just different T.38 implementations
                  ...</font>  </span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"></span></font> </div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">Thus,
                any constructive discussion should address also that
                level of detail.</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010"></span></font> </div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">Regards,</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"><font size="2" color="#800000"
              face="Trebuchet MS"><span class="000103805-16122010">Albrecht</span></font></div>
          <div dir="ltr" align="left"> </div>
          <br>
          <blockquote dir="ltr" style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left:
            5px; border-left: 2px solid rgb(128, 0, 0); margin-right:
            0px;">
            <div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr" lang="en-us"
              align="left">
              <hr tabindex="-1"> <font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>
                [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
                  href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>]
                <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richey<br>
                <b>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2010 04:53<br>
                <b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a><br>
                <b>Subject:</b> Re: [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP<br>
              </font><br>
            </div>
            <div class="WordSection1">
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
                  rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
                  'Calibri','sans-serif';">The TA900s and 2431s will
                  handle faxing, alarms, modems, etc fine IF you do two
                  things.  One you use point to point circuits between
                  you and the IAD.  The other thing is avoid sending
                  these accounts across sip trunks that traverse the
                  internet.   We use a combination of PRIs for local and
                  SIP trunks for LD.  We route the “data lines” so that
                  their local and ld go out their closest PRI.    If the
                  customer wants to bring their own bandwidth or they
                  are offnet we won’t support any kind of data calls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
                  rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
                  'Calibri','sans-serif';"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
                  rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
                  'Calibri','sans-serif';">Richey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
                  rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
                  'Calibri','sans-serif';"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
              <div style="border-right: medium none; padding: 3pt 0in
                0in; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style:
                solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223)
                -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
                      font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif';">From:</span></b><span
                    style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
                    'Tahoma','sans-serif';"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                      href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>
                    [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
                      href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>]
                    <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeff Anderson<br>
                    <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:54 PM<br>
                    <b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                      href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a><br>
                    <b>Subject:</b> [VoiceOps] Dynamic T1 Faxing over IP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
              </div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal">We are experiencing a fair amount of
                heart burn attempting to support faxing over our Dynamic
                T1 product. Some customers it works great and others
                have frequent problems.<br>
                <br>
                We currently support dynamic T1's using both Adtran
                TA900 series and Cisco IAD2400 services routers. The
                customers fax machines will connect to their PBX that
                has a PRI to an IAD/TA. We have the IAD/TA configured
                for SIP signaling to an Acme SBC selecting T.38 as the
                preferred codec with fallback to g.711 pass-through. We
                can force a slower speed, disable error correction,
                disabled VAD but in the end still have very inconsistent
                results. From a network perspective the QoS is matching
                and queuing correctly, the circuits are clean and the IP
                SLA gives us no reason to believe they are having any
                network drops or jitter.<br>
                <br>
                I was wondering if others who have experience with
                faxing over IP could share what they have learned works
                best or anything else that may be helpful.<br>
                <br>
                Any help is greatly appreciated.<br>
                <br>
                Thanks,<br>
                <br>
                Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a>
</pre>
        </blockquote>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Lee Riemer
Director of Technical Operations
Bestline Communications, L.P.
Voice: 1+512.328.9095
Fax: 1+512.328.0038</pre>
  </body>
</html>