<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><font color="navy" face="Arial">
Recent versions of Asterisk and Freeswitch are also capable of T.38 "gatewaying" (T.30 g711/T.30 interop). However, my guess is that the OP was interested in a pure T.38 path for its perceived reliability.<br><br>
Getting back on topic, you aren't likely to have good fax results from anything but a Tier 1 provider like Level(3). There are just too many LCR shenanigans and who knows what else with anything less.<br><br>With that being said we've been doing T.38 on Level(3) Vector (Sonus) for over a year. I regularly run loopback tests with multiple geographic and provider diverse PRIs sending/receiving faxes to/from LI and ELS dids on every Level(3) SBC.<br>
<br>Sending T.38 faxes to Freeswitch with T.38 regularly results in a %97 success rate. Upon complaining to Level(3) their first suggestion was to switch to ulaw. Keep in mind this is over the public internet. I was skeptical to say the least. Re-running the same tests regularly results in a %98 success rate. We're able to dynamically switch between T.38 and ulaw on a call by call basis. Repeated controlled tests have held with ulaw consistently being about %1 more reliable.<br>
<br>My only guess is that T.38, while being more reliable in theory, suffers from implementation bugs like anything else. On a solid connection ulaw is simpler and thus more reliable. On a shaky connection between known endpoints T.38 emerges victorious due to features such as packet redundancy, etc.<br>
<br>That's why we still use T.38 down to our ATA devices with great success. Our customer's DSL connections probably couldn't get past tone detection/modem handshake with ulaw.<br><br>Yes, I really thumbed out this entire message from my BlackBerry near midnight. I've lost way too much sleep from faxing over IP as it is!
<br>
<br>--
<br>Kristian Kielhofner
<br>Sent from a mobile device.</font></div>
<br><div><hr size="2" width="100%" align="center" tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma">
<b>From</b>: <a href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a> <<a href="mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org">voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org</a>>
<br><b>To</b>: Nathan Anderson <<a href="mailto:nathana@fsr.com">nathana@fsr.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Cc</b>: <a href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a> <<a href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a>>
<br><b>Sent</b>: Mon Dec 12 21:59:10 2011<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [VoiceOps] T.38 termination provider?
<br>
</font><br></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Slightly off topic but from spec sheet the new transcoding NUIs in the low-end ACME SBCs (3820/4500?) in theory can handle T.38 to T.30(ulaw/alaw) interop, so you might be able to 'wrangle' it yourself.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium">
<div>
<div>--</div>
<div> Peter Childs - Voice Engineer</div>
<div> Internode/Agile</div>
<div> Ph: 08 8228 2380 Mb: 0406 388 405 Fax: 08 8235 6801</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 13/12/2011, at 12:26 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Hello,<br>
<br>
New to the list. I work for a regional broadband ISP who is looking to also become an ITSP.<br>
<br>
We are looking for a good SIP termination provider with reasonable rates to all of North America that also happens to guarantee T.38 gateway support for 100% of calls.<br>
<br>
Currently, we are using FlowRoute. We are happy with the service, but the odds of us hitting a gateway (through one of their upstreams) that will accept our T.38 re-INVITE are about 50/50...not very good.<br>
<br>
We tried Gafachi, but that was not a good experience. Their rate table is all kinds of screwed-up.<br>
<br>
The only other one I've been able to find in my searches is Alcazar Networks. Anybody have any first-hand experience with them who can vouch for them as well as their T.38 support for the wholesale termination product?<br>
<br>
Other recommendations are also welcome, as well. Although we may someday go down the road of loading an LCR table into our SBC, at this point we are looking for a single solid termination provider that will handle 100% of our outbound call volume (a mix of
voice and fax); we can fall-back to FlowRoute as a backup solution if the primary provider goes down.<br>
<br>
Thanks a million,<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Nathan Anderson<br>
First Step Internet, LLC<br>
<a href="mailto:nathana@fsr.com">nathana@fsr.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>