alternative to voip gateways

[a.slastenov at gmail.com (Andrey Slastenov)]

Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.


Regards, 
Andrey

> 2 маÑ? 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards at gmail.com> напиÑ?ал(а):
> 
> I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote
> village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go
> nowhere past the MDF.
> 
> The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers
> because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that
> business  stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
> 
> So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
> 
> I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass
> through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare
> R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this
> works.
> 
> OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere
> that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream
> 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so
> theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used
> because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
> 
> But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not
> a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more
> cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have
> an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch
> of individual gateways.
> 
> This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on
> a large scale.
> Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method
> acceptable or not for such a project size?
> 
> most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where
> gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all
> our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the
> beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats
> not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
> 
> thoughts?