Hi everybody,
I would like to install sipx 3.10.3 into a remote VPS, with no physical
access. The only access I have , is through virtuozzo. My VPS is running
CentOS 5 , and my question is how can I install sipx , while there is not
GUI support through virtuozzo ? So far I have used the .iso for l
In my defense, i think the discussion was something like this...
milosz: mediant gateways wont work.
tony: use a patton gateway.
milosz: im on 3.8.x, problems with this and that, how do i fix it.
tony: use a patton gateway. upgrade to 3.10.x and work through your issues.
milosz: what about HA.
ton
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:31 -0500, milosz wrote:
> i remember talking to tony about it a while back and he basically
> convinced me to not use it. i don't recall his reasons anymore,
> though, something like "it's more trouble than it's worth." one of my
> deployments keeps getting bigger and ha
The easiest way would be to backup, and re-install / restore...
Otherwise you could manually configure the first PBX from the HA Install
document.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: milosz [mailto:mew...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Dale Worley
Cc: Picher, Michael; s
I think I may have gotten it sorted out... There's a setting in Patton
that basically waits until callerid is received. I didn't have that
enabled.
So if the initial target phone starts ringing before callerid is
received it doesn't have the caller-id in the FROM part of the Invite
message. How
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 13:58 -0500, Picher, Michael wrote:
>
> Any reason why callerid would get passed through to Polycom 350's but
> not to 650's?
>
> sipX 3.10.3, Polycom firmware 3.1.1 and bootrom 4.1.2, Patton SN4118's w/5.2
> firmware.
There is no difference in how calls are routed or mod
i remember talking to tony about it a while back and he basically
convinced me to not use it. i don't recall his reasons anymore,
though, something like "it's more trouble than it's worth." one of my
deployments keeps getting bigger and having only one box is making me
nervous. is there a straig
Not exactly sure what is getting seen by the user. It's at a site about an
hour and a half away and this report was from a user.
I assume, call comes in to the 650 and no callerid displayed & then xferred to
a 330 and the user sees caller-id.
I'll need to do a little more digging but I just wa
have you done any investigation? is it actually getting passed and
just not appearing? are you talking about name appearance, number
appearance? what does the display on the 650's show for an incoming
call?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Picher, Michael
wrote:
> And of course by Polycom 350
Try putting a '#' in front of the 'restrict 127.0.0.1' line if that's in there
and NTP is installed.
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org on behalf of Dale Worley
Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 11:03 AM
To: Gilmour, Scott
Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [s
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:20 -0500, Picher, Michael wrote:
> Personally, I think the biggest headache with HA is that is just
> increases complexity. Other than that, it generally works pretty
> well.
>
> Most problems generally break down to users not understanding DNS.
That's true, you have to
Personally, I think the biggest headache with HA is that is just increases
complexity. Other than that, it generally works pretty well.
Most problems generally break down to users not understanding DNS.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org on behalf of
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:42 +0100, Gmb wrote:
> I've installed last development sipx version (3.11) and I've noticed
> that is not possible to setup more than one redundantSipRouter in a
> cluster. Is this correct? In future sipx version 4.0 is possible to
> extend the cluster with more than one
And of course by Polycom 350 I really mean Polycom 330.
-Original Message-
From: Picher, Michael
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 1:58 PM
To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: callerid on poly 650's vs. 350's
Any reason why callerid would get passed through to Polycom 350's but not to
650's?
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:42 +0100, Gmb wrote:
> Hi,
> I've installed last development sipx version (3.11) and I've noticed
> that is not possible to setup more than one redundantSipRouter in a
> cluster. Is this correct? In future sipx version 4.0 is possible to
> extend the cluster with more t
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:10 -0500, milosz wrote:
> just wondering who is using ha for their deployments and how it's been
> working for them...
We've had customers using it routinely for several years. What problems
are you seeing?
Dale
___
sipx-use
Any reason why callerid would get passed through to Polycom 350's but not to
650's?
sipX 3.10.3, Polycom firmware 3.1.1 and bootrom 4.1.2, Patton SN4118's w/5.2
firmware.
Thanks,
Mike
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:10 -0500, milosz wrote:
> hi all,
>
> just wondering who is using ha for their deployments and how it's been
> working for them... after having had a few conversations with people a
> while back i decided to write it off, basically. wondering if the
> situation has impro
hi all,
just wondering who is using ha for their deployments and how it's been
working for them... after having had a few conversations with people a
while back i decided to write it off, basically. wondering if the
situation has improved. in particular i'm interested in any ancillary
problems/g
This is an issue with the limitations of the patton gateway acting as a b2bua.
I used that for a while and found transferring calls did not work with another
provider either.
I think doing this with a patton gateway is hazardous. It will work with most
providers with DID's, but being able to tr
hello,
I'm using voxbone as a trunk provider for my sipx server ( 3.10.2 on gentoo ).
When im using direct connection - voxbone is directly connecting to sipx
server - it is working 100% perfectly.
But when i try to use patton between voxbone and sipx then there is a problem.
Autoattendant ( w
Hi,
I've installed last development sipx version (3.11) and I've noticed
that is not possible to setup more than one redundantSipRouter in a
cluster. Is this correct? In future sipx version 4.0 is possible to
extend the cluster with more than one SipRouter?
__
Hi,
*
First of all make sure your 7970 phone has SIP firemware.
*
If you your DHCP server include the tftp option 66 in it with your sipXecs IP
address as the tftp server, then what you need only is to reboot the phone and
it will access your sipXecs to download the phone profile.
*
If your
23 matches
Mail list logo
