[VoIP] Asterisk-Adtran dial rate

[John Novack]

Which?
Kerman or the CNET number?

JN


Lee Spenadel wrote:
> Never mind, a mistake.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
> Lee Spenadel
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: 'Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches'
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Asterisk-Adtran dial rate
>
> BTW, the Kerman message has been updated at 349-0666.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
> Kirt Stanfield
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: ikjtel
> Cc: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Asterisk-Adtran dial rate
>
> Max,
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear - I will try to be more careful in the future-
>
> The good news is that I experimentally verified what you said. The 
> following settings seemed to improve the dialing accuracy a bit:
>
> PULSEBREAK=60
> PULSEMAKE=40
>
> Now one odd thing - the Digit Grabber still reports 13 PPS.
>
> So I tried another variant - I multiplied each of the above by 13/10 on 
> the assumption that if they are if fact absolute timings that doing so 
> would get me closer to 10 PPS. That did NOT work, or at least the digit 
> grabber still reported 13 PPS. Two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. The digit grabber is wrong.
> 2. The above values are some sort of % instead of absolute millisecond 
> timings.
>
>
> Kirt
>
>
> ikjtel wrote:
>
>   
>> --- Kirt Stanfield <kirtley.stanfield at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> Max,
>>>
>>> I tried changing the PULSEMAKE and PULSEBREAK. It
>>> did seem to make some 
>>> difference, I just have yet to home in on optimal
>>> values. IF these are 
>>> in fact milliseconds it would seem that 60/40 would
>>> give 10 pps. It 
>>> doesn't quite seem to work that way. In fact it
>>> seems to work better 
>>> when I set to 40/60, the exact opposite of what I
>>> would think, but it 
>>> still pulses at about 13pps. Gues I will try some
>>> simple math and ratio 
>>> both up by 13/10 for the next try.
>>>    
>>>
>>>       
>> OK, the above is ambiguous.  Can't tell which one
>> (MAKE or BREAK) you're setting to 60 and which to 40.
>>
>> I would say that proper values for Bell System dials
>> would be
>> PULSEBREAK=60
>> PULSEMAKE=40
>>
>> (FWIW my ITT/Kellogg TIMM-2 recommends 62/38 for the
>> WE-clone dials used in their line of 500-series sets)
>>
>> Also, still waiting for you to answer what the pulsing
>> sounds like (regular or erratic) from a monitor set...
>>
>> Also, how much do you trust your 13pps figure???  The
>> amount of error (30%) is suspicious.  You should be
>> able to compare the speed against a known dial...
>>
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________________
>>     
> _________
>   
>> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
>> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

-- 
Dog is my co-pilot