All services should run as normal and still point to same servers.
Switching DNS server is just the first step for preparing to switch
each piece of the current infrastructure over to new hardware
Affected sites/services
scm
mail (list)
wiki
www
track
sipxecs
sipxtapi
code
admin
forum
I
On Sat 17.Jul.10 17:18, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 1:15 PM, dan wrote:
>> Could someone clarify the difference between the repos at
>> opensuse.org and ezuce.com? The builds at opensuse seem to be slightly
>> newer. Which one is recommended?
>
>ezuce.com are the official ones.
On 7/19/10 6:28 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
Er, uh...
I think I called you with my pfsense last week via ISN, I am using
pfsense 2.0, so that went on for more than 5 minutes.
inbound seems fine.
I'll play in the office some. was hoping to send keepaliaves on tcp
port 5060 to the far end, ts
Er, uh...
I think I called you with my pfsense last week via ISN, I am using pfsense
2.0, so that went on for more than 5 minutes.
I think you need to find someone with a firewall OTHER THAN those listed and
see if they will let you call for more than 5 minutes. Last I heard
Nathaniel is also run
isn dialing, SEEMED to be ok. 1234*256.
it might be the firewall at the far end.
but, from what I can tell, its not the fault of the sonicwall firewall
here (since I replaced it with pfsense)
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
sip:1...@secnap.com
> *| *SECNAP Network Securi
Two different firewalls on my end. sonicwall and pfsense.
dialing, now (have to put it into speed dial, can't dial on keypad,
unless you got ISN dialing.. which I have)
you allow 5 min voicemails?
On 7/19/10 6:15 PM, Nathaniel Watkins wrote:
When you say two different firewalls - do you m
> that merge-logs was not producing useful output, which seems to have been
> due to user error (in particular, not getting logging set to INFO level).
> So there's no reason to carry on worrying about the situation.
It was actually because I was looking for the wrong number but still user error
When you say two different firewalls - do you mean you've tried 2 different
ones at your end?
You can try calling my sip uri
5...@garrettcounty.org
At the very least - you could leave a longish voicemail...
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-
Sipxbridge should not be involved in that call, only media relay.
Does is still happen when you uncheck stray packets in media relay?
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
LAN/Telephony/Security and Contr
almost exactly 5 min.
Two different firewalls, one sonicwall, with all the SIP helpers turned
off, the other, a pfsense firewall that uses Tony's templates.
EVERYTHING ELSE WORKS. I have have hours long conversations if you call
me, or I call you on PSTN (using sip trunks)
sip dialing outb
> Given that status information is stored in the VM "database", I would
> expect that a filesystem replication strategy would work 98% of the time,
> and the other 2% would destroy information. I wouldn't trust anything less
> than a real distributed DBMS to work robustly.
Thing is, when the stan
I think in his instance he is hosting service for lots of folks, so Exchange
becomes unwieldly and expensive.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Kurt Siegfried wrote:
> What about something like using Exchange Unified Messaging, and the
> clustering you can do with that for voicemail? It's not ope
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hubler
[dhub...@ezuce.com]
There would always be a window where vm could get lost though unless
someone implements real-time replication filesystem
What about something like using Exchange Unified Messaging, and the
clustering you can do with that for voicemail? It's not open source,
but if you were a heavily Microsoft shop already, it might be
something that was withing reach.
Call control could stay with Sipx, and the voicemail records cou
There's only one way to find out what might work, I'm going to build a couple
of systems and see what I can come up with.
Sometimes, solutions are found by not over complicating the thinking first,
trying it, then working through the problems.
What would happen if you had two sipx systems, shar
I think there's more to it than that.
Right now, even in HA, wherever the user is created is where their VM box
is. So there are some dependencies on the sole fact that if the server has
VM, then that is where the user needs to check it. So it is more than an
asynchronous replication, but also dig
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:13 PM, WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)
wrote:
> VM is a particularly difficult situation. It is an "operational" component
> (as opposed to a "configuragion" component), so it has to operate in more or
> less real time.
Are there situations particularly in branch setups where u
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
[tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net]
I don't think centralized voicemail has been addressed yet.
In theory in a HA environment it could cause a lot
I have been wondering about a combination of what you guys are doing.
Rather than keeping two servers in sync, my thought is running two base
servers, where each has it's sipx related directories on a very fast network
share. The database server would be hosted on another server and a client use
On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:34 PM, "m...@grounded.net"
wrote:
I very badly need to make sure that a server is always present, that
VM is always available. Even if it means dropped calls when failing
over to another server, that would be acceptable.
I had considered going with DRBD to allow for
>>> "m...@grounded.net" 07/19/10 7:25 AM >>>
>>>HA to me always means having fully separate servers without one main
>>>controller.
>>>For example, web servers should have fail over front end load balancers to
>>>multiple back end servers.
>>>
>>>In the case of sipx, even some fail over would
At the same time, a re-thinking of the framework used for HA could be
reworked to be more WAN or CLOUD friendly.
I think a CLOUD friendly framework should be a different discussion though.
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi.
I don't think centralized voicemail has been addressed yet.
In theory in a HA environment it could cause a lot more WAN traffic so its
probably not real high on other peoples lists.
There would be significant work to be done to centralize it.
So if your centralized VM server went down there woul
I use a custom dial rule on sipx for such a task.
Just create a custom rule that matches 6, converts it to , and
without a gateway.
Rgds,
Nikolay.
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
Am 19.07.10 02:20, schrieb Douglas Hubler:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Michal Bielicki
> wrote:
>
>> The fix is for a far newer freeswitch version than the one in sipX, so I
>> guess in the current sipXecs versions it is still in.
>>
> Idea: I have to update FS in the unstable bu
I very badly need to make sure that a server is always present, that VM is
always available. Even if it means dropped calls when failing over to another
server, that would be acceptable.
I've asked about fail over in the past and wondering if anyone has worked on
such a beast to date?
HA to me
26 matches
Mail list logo
