How can Asterix PBX/IP be compared to vendors such as Avalla, Nortel.

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by jgcastan, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. jgcastan

    jgcastan Guest

    How can Asterix PBX/IP be compared to vendors such as Avalla, Nortel,
    Cisco, etc? How big Asterix PBX/IP can really grow as to the number of
    users? voice quality? etc. Thanks for your insights
     
    jgcastan, Jun 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jgcastan

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison at all, since Asterisk is just
    software.

    miguel
     
    Miguel Cruz, Jun 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. Isn't that how the whole industry is going though?
    Cisco CallManager/Unity is purely software too.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Jun 21, 2005
    #3
  4. jgcastan

    John Nelson Guest

    There is virtually no limit to the number of users that can be supported
    via Asterisk. That said, Asterisk's scalability is, beyond a certain
    point, cumbersome. For organizations with the expertise to deal with
    these issues, this is a trivial matter, more than offset by the dramatic
    cost savings of this open-source solution.

    Voice quality is dependent on a number of factors, but all of those
    being equal, Asterisk will deliver voice quality as good as any other
    system.
     
    John Nelson, Jun 21, 2005
    #4
  5. jgcastan

    wkearney99 Guest

    For organizations with the expertise to deal with
    Personnel costs to deal with it may well be a hell of a lot more expensive
    than commercial solutions. An oft-overlooked point when people start
    blathering on about open source.
     
    wkearney99, Jun 22, 2005
    #5
  6. jgcastan

    appan Guest

    Asterisk is a software based solutions require skill in set up and
    maintanence.
    But the PBXs are made like commodity and needs minimum skill and
    expertise to set up and maintanence.
    As mentioned opensource require high tech support and it is costly. But
    Asterisk offer features and facility far ahead of any PBX.
    The scalability, quality etc,, are very good for Asterisk and only you
    need to add more hardware resources.
    The development in Asterisk going on for embedded linux etc to make the
    system simple.
     
    appan, Jun 22, 2005
    #6
  7. jgcastan

    John Nelson Guest


    <sigh...>

    What part of "For organizations with the expertise to deal with these
    issues..." did you not get?
     
    John Nelson, Jun 22, 2005
    #7
  8. jgcastan

    wkearney99 Guest

    What part of "For organizations with the expertise to deal with these
    I didn't miss the point at all. The level of experience needed to run a PBX
    is quite a bit less than that needed to put up with the same thing cobbled
    up on a linux box. All too often those interested in preaching about the
    'savings' of things like open source fail to appreciate the entire range of
    actual costs to the organization. Yes, a place that already has a PBX
    expert on staff might well also be able to handle the added burden of
    cobbling up a linux box. But I'd argue that's not common enough to make it
    a better deal for most companies looking for a brainless-to-operate PBX that
    just 'works'.
     
    wkearney99, Jun 23, 2005
    #8
  9. jgcastan

    John Nelson Guest

    You are making a number of assumptions, after the fact, to justify your
    position. Given those assumptions, your argument is valid. Nevertheless,
    it remains true that, given staff of adequate skills, Asterisk can be
    deployed in the PBX role at substantial savings over traditional
    hardware.

    Indeed, for the money I'd save over an Avaya system with similar
    capabilites, I could train my PBX-boy or network admin to expert level
    on Asterisk, or hire a consultant to do the work, and still have tens of
    thousands of dollars left over.

    "Just works" is my yardstick as well, when it comes to systems that are
    as vital as telephony is to most organizations. Asterisk reached that
    point some time ago. Set up on proper hardware, by someone who knows
    what she's doing, it is easily the equal of anthing the traditional PBX
    vendors have to offer, and exceeds them in many areas.
     
    John Nelson, Jun 23, 2005
    #9
  10. When he said "expertise in place", I think he meant someone who is both
    Linux admin and PBX admin experienced. Which is likely to be rare.
     
    T. Sean Weintz, Jun 23, 2005
    #10
  11. John Nelson wrote:
    <snip>

    Well Avaya isn't exactly known for dollar value. Compare it against a
    vendor with more reasonably priced stuff and your argument does not hold
    up.
     
    T. Sean Weintz, Jun 23, 2005
    #11
  12. jgcastan

    stephen Guest

    this depends on scale and complexity - simple setups are meant to be easy,
    but like most other IT related systems, things get complicated and need more
    care and attention as they get bigger.
    i think this may actually be a key point.

    FWIW - the "expensive" commercial systems such as Cisco call manager tend to
    spend a big chunk of the total systems cost on end points and gateways. So
    IP phones, or convertors to support existing analog handsets, and gateways
    to access PSTN etc is where a lot of money ends up.

    The high end softswitches used by PSTN providers are even more biased
    towards peripheral costs as the individual modes scale up the number of end
    points per system.

    I cant see how having a "free" central call management piece can affect the
    direct cost of the bits that use separate hardware to scale up.

    again on call manager you can put gateways cards into the central processor
    (or you could initially) - but this severely restricts the number of end
    points, call setup rates and other scale limits.

    to answer the original Q - last time i checked call manager could handle
    37000 end points as a single logical PBX using a central server cluster

    i cant see any reason that asterix cant go to similar scale with a similar
    design- but if it did i would want a 2 or 4 hour fix support + maint
    contract on it, design that would survive loss of any server etc - and i
    think that might be hard to find for a non commercial product.

    One of the advantages with something commercial like the cisco is that they
    will provide a reference design, and commit to scaling rules, size limits
    and so on.
     
    stephen, Jun 25, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.