Colleagues, in the Change Log of Asterisk 21 it is proudly written that various modules have been removed from it as deprecated.
Undoubtedly, the macros remaining somewhere can be very easily rewritten into subroutines; from chan_sip you can switch to the less convenient, but somewhat more flexible PJSIP.
But do I understand correctly that after removing chan_skinny, chan_mgcp, Asterisk ceases to be a multiprotocol switch? In fact it only retains SIP and IAX2 support…
(I know a number of organizations and projects that still use equipment with protocols that have been removed. Mostly Cisco. Typically these are not wealthy social, scientific, or educational groups.)
As far as I know, it still supports analogue and both common channel and associated channel signalling protocols over E1/T1
The FreePBX people don’t seem to be finding this at all easy!
Most of the things that have gone will have been on notice for many years, and some of them are probably community supported with no supporting community.
Unfortunately the great link rot of a few months back means my attempt to find the list of modules statuses stalls at Asterisk Module Deprecation ⋆ Asterisk which simply links to the top of the documentation with its false positive generating search option… OK found an old version of that, but more searching will be needed to find which where community supported. Asterisk Module Deprecations - Asterisk Project - Asterisk Project Wiki
No, no, that’s not what I meant. If DAHDI were also thrown out of this version, it would simply be a real scandal! (Although, in my opinion, it is no longer very stable and on some platforms the module is marked as non-working.)
I meant modules Skinny and MGCP. Who did they offend? The protocols, for obvious reasons, have not changed, so the code also does not need to be adjusted. Why remove these modules?
I don’t want to offend anyone, but what do you want from the PBX for blondes?
But macros are little things. There is formally a mechanism for integrating your own code, but it does not work. Therefore, it is almost impossible to embed something there without the risk of losing it when installing an update.
Everything in Asterisk incurs a maintenance burden and increases security vulnerability scope. The chan_skinny module never saw much use because there was an outside module with much more functionality. chan_mgcp also didn’t see much use because that protocol and phones using them are rare and not really produced anymore. You say that you “know a number of organizations and projects that still use equipment with protocols that have been removed”. Do you mean with Asterisk or in general? So far this is the only comment raised regarding them.
I’d also like to touch on your statement that protocols didn’t change. This is true. Asterisk does though, which can result in changes being required elsewhere including in seldom used modules. Modules that we can’t really test.
The list for module deprecations is here.
 Asterisk Module Deprecations - Asterisk Documentation
I’ve also made note of your opinion regarding the removal of chan_skinny and chan_mgcp. I keep track of such things when it comes to module deprecations.
You understood me correctly. I’m talking about about half a dozen projects that use Cisco phones, Cisco conference phones and Cisco wireless Wi-Fi phones that work with Asterisk using the Skinny protocol. This is because there are many of them on the secondary market and they are cheap. In addition, various commercial organizations, while upgrading their phone fleets, were very fond of donating old, but quite working Cisco devices to some poor but respected projects.
The same applies to old high-density analog gateways, usually Huawei or D-Link brands, working using the MGCP protocol.
The budget for replacing them with similar ones with SIP support is at the level of the cost of one or two cars, also from Asian manufacturers. Replacement with modern and functional SIP telephones - 3-5 cars.
If you really don’t have such peripherals, I can send you a phone with Skinny and a gateway with MGСP by post. It will be a shame if Asterisk ceases to be a multi-protocol switch.
These are very encouraging words.
By the way, as befits an old Asterisk dinosaur, I also saw a working installation that works with a security alarm using some rather old american protocol, the name of which I have already forgotten. But I helped set up Asterisk and connect it to this security system. I believe this system still works!