The IPPBX is much better than it was. I've sent them a fault report that the NAT lookback only seems to work properly for the normal external IP address - extra ones don't have it working (it used to work ok in an earlier firmware release). No fix for the last 2 firmware updates. They say I am the only one with the problem - but I don't see that this is possible???

Also the feature set lags behind the normal 2820 somewhat - its like they are using 2820 source from a couple of years ago! Which is a shame. The latest 2820 firmware even has a nice new fancy login window and auto logout modes, voip encryption, etc...

BTW: The UK site doesn't have the latest firmware update for a lot of the Draytek products - you should visit the .com for the latest update - this didn't used to be the case.

Also on the ippbx, it's very patching when you use a voip handset registered externally - I've never got it to work properly - but when connecting to the internal IP address the same handset works great.

Good news is that the unit doesn't seem to crash anymore.

So, to summarise...

"Get a normal 2820 and use Trixbox"

So are we still no nearer to getting full use of the FXO port as a trunk?

I have to say this is a complete show stopper for me. I'm currently using the snomONE PBX (i.e. pbxnsip) running on a Mac and it is a really nice PBX and totally stable. But, I have to use an external PSTN/FXO gateway (Linksys SPA3102) which is FAR from perfect, or even acceptable. Getting the analogue port direct into the PBX's hardware looks like the ultimate solution and also, I would prefer to be able to turn the server off when away for any extended period so the idea of the IPPBX 2820 is VERY attractive (especially as I currently use a regular 2820 router). But how can the designers have been so shortsighted as to not use the FXO as a trunk. I'm sorry but this is just so stupefyingly stupid. It's such an OBVIOUS requirement and I am obviously not the only one who needs it. This should have been designed in from the start and then if some users have no need, hey, they just don't use it. IMO an FXO trunk is infinitely more useful than 2 ISDN trunks. Not even just one, but 2 whole ports dedicated to an outdated and outmoded technology (BT don't even offer small scale ISDN here in the UK anymore).

I am very concerned that companies such as Draytek (and Snom since some of their other products are AT LEAST as crappy as the 2820 IPPBX) are able to legally market and sell such fundamentally flawed and unusable (for what they are claimed to be able to do) products. I've been buying IT stuff for long enough to understand that bugs may exist, but we're not talking a few bugs here, that surface under certain unusual conditions. No, we're talking really basic problems with the functionality. IOW, they just don't work as they should. E.g. PBX/telephone products that crash when a call comes in. Telephones that may or may not ring on incoming calls. This comes under the heading 'not fit for the purpose'.

Apart from a few products, e.g. pbxnsip and Siemens Gigasets, both of which seem to work pretty well, it seems to me that the whole VOIP market is awash with faulty products that have no right to be on sale, for which customers are paying good money. Maybe they are refunded when the item is returned, but what about the cost of the time wasted - that's not re-imbursed.

I believe it is possible to make VOIP telephony work. But Draytek (and Snom) have spectacularly failed to do this with their products and they really should be brought to account.

Regarding the FXO trunk situation - I too was completely wrong-footed by the website. It never occurred to me that such an obvious function might have been excluded. Until this is working, Draytek's IPPBX is a non starter. When they have that done, I will look at it again and hope the rest of it is working better.

What do you mean by FXO not supported? When the product was released it wasn't, but nor was it either advertised or listed in the specification.

More recently firmware (e.g. 3.5.5.2) does allow you to use the analogue line interface to makes calls; have you tried ?

Not even just one, but 2 whole ports dedicated to an outdated and outmoded technology (BT don't even offer small scale ISDN here in the UK anymore).

Analogue lines are even older, but you're complaining that you can use yours, so what is your complaint here?

Is it just that YOU don't use ISDN, so YOU object to paying for the feature? Plenty of other people do use it, and they might not use the same features that you do !

admin wrote:

Not even just one, but 2 whole ports dedicated to an outdated and outmoded technology (BT don't even offer small scale ISDN here in the UK anymore).

Analogue lines are even older, but you're complaining that you can use yours, so what is your complaint here?

Is it just that YOU don't use ISDN, so YOU object to paying for the feature? Plenty of other people do use it, and they might not use the same features that you do !

Both your posts indicate that you have entirely missed the point, but never mind.

No point you asking whether I have tried anything myself as I don't yet have the IPPBX (just my 2820 router). I 'think' I like the idea of a single box to do routing and PBX, but one of the BIG attractions would be the ability to utilise the FXO port as a trunk. It is that feature which would tempt me to move from snomONE, but as I said, if the Vigor IPPBX can't do that, it's a non-starter.

However, are you saying that the FXO port can now actually be used as a trunk for incoming and outgoing calls? Can it be selected as a choice in dial plans? I am delighted if this is the case, but no-one on this thread has previously indicated that this has now been incorporated into the firmware. Has it?