Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

I've used Voip.ms for over 12 months now with sipXecs, and did the interop testing on it for Ranga. It works fine. And, I have several friends that use it as well. But let's be real - for $ .99 a month, what are you really getting? From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailt

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Let's not exaggerate here. Sipxbridge has not been available for a couple of years. From my standpoint, I use it with two different ITSP's. It works flawlessly, no problems, nada, zilch. It amazes me the complaints that people make over products they use for free, but have not taken the man

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

So, to keep the calls going out the local MPLS port at a remote location, my choices are to have an SBC of some sort at the remote site or to setup up a separate unamaged gateway pointing to the Sip trunk for each location? I'm a little unclear on how the second option would work. I'm putting

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Friends. Is that at TV reference? You're a funny guy (as in ha ha). In all seriousness, his issues are specific to a carrier. I'm sure adding a nic and moving one ip address to that for trunking will get his stuff going. On the other hand he is having audio issues after 5 minutes. Which speaks t

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Don't you mean 'moo'? Sorry. Couldn't resist. I didn't really like the show Friends that much, but the episode where Joey thought it was a 'moo point' was pretty funny. -Original Message- From: Tony Graziano Sender: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:10:32

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Pointedly the sipxbridge module is being updated to allow sending by the "to:" haeder (instead of invite) and adding PPI. Both of which are going to increase the "flexibility" of connecting to carriers. There is a JIRA issue to allow sipxbridge to also communicate on port 5060. I'm like one of th

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Many itsp's do ip based and include port. You can send to voip.ms with ip based. Their Director of Technical Services I'd working with me to try to give me the other half of the solution. I suppose if I get it working I'll consider sharing... Realize ITSP's who offer IP based AUTH TYPICALLY offe

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

I meant the 5060;5080 translation. Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

On 8/20/10 9:47 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: Realize this is all because you are using an "inflexible" ITSP. get voip.ms to work right on ip based authentication only. document it. (but then again, I guess they are inflexible too. as is att, verizon.. ... ...) give it up guys. if you want

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

That would be level3. Most itsp are flexible. The bigger guys who don't offer control panels or control are inflexible. Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Help

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

On 8/20/10 9:47 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: Realize this is all because you are using an "inflexible" ITSP. Siproxd is not flexible or elegant. no, I am using an inflexible sip switch that uses a non-standard set of ports. if I was the only one, it would be different, but this has been discus

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

I don't think its relevant if it is pointed out. As you might have noticed it does not matter if you use an sbc, its nice to have choices. If you had setup your firewall with different interfaces (one for the itsp) you don't need 1:1 nat and you could send traffic to the itsp by choosing that gat

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Realize this is all because you are using an "inflexible" ITSP. Siproxd is not flexible or elegant. We use ingates all the time in front of sipx for itsp and re$otes both on port 5060. Opensbc is a beast to configure. I use polycoms all the time remotely, so YEAH it is probably the remote users

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

one more single point of failure. why not just put opensbc on another host? anyway, one more article on using freeswitch as a sbc/proxy:' I basically gave the rest of next week to solve all these sipx problems or will be forced to replace it. I a

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Unless you put sipXbridge on a separate host. That seems a lot easier to me that using anything else --martin From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Michael Scheidell Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:28 PM To: Michael Scheid

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Oto further complicate matters are pure sip url calls from 'the world'. If you are forwarding 5060 -> sipxbridge:5080 and 5061 ->sipxbridge:5060, what happens when I make a sip:u...@domain.com to you? do I have to use sip:u...@domain.com:5061? I assume all this goes away if we put a REAL sbc

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

On 8/20/10 7:24 PM, Martin Steinmann wrote: Joegen I think a possible solution close to what you are suggesting is captured here. This would likely be the most elegant solution. http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-5010 Solving the problem described here might be easier and get us part of

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

+1 Agreed. I tried using a sip uri from an itsp to get around some of the port 5080 stuff just today. Regardless of the syntax I use: ip:port 1.2.3.4:580 sipdomain:5080 dns srv (subdomain) with sip pointing to port 5080 hostname:5080 The result was the call came into port 5080, but the invite st

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Martin, Thanks for the links. Scott nailed on the head with a one liner. Joegen On 8/21/10 7:24 AM, Martin Steinmann wrote: Joegen I think a possible solution close to what you are suggesting is captured here. This would likely be the most elegant solution. http://track.sipfoundry.org/

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Joegen I think a possible solution close to what you are suggesting is captured here. This would likely be the most elegant solution. http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-5010 Solving the problem described here might be easier and get us part of the way. Eventually we will need to addre

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

Just thinking out loud. I am wondering that if carefuly done, the proxy maybe able to simply forward trunk calls made through 5060 towards 5080. Proxy must not record-route so that mid-dialog requests could be handed off straight to the bridge. Any idea why this wasn't considered instead of

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

That worked! Thanks Tony, have a great weekend! From: Tony Graziano Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 3:44 PM To: Gerald Harper Cc: Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) ; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org ; sipXecs developers Subject: Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nu

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

On 21/08/2010, at 12:14 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) > wrote: >> >> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >> [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Reynolds >> [je...@va.

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

I see an issue with the repo in your case. [sipXecs] name=sipXecs build service for CentOS $releasever - $basearch baseurl=http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/4.2.0/CentOS/5/i386/RPM/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=0

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Ok. I see your sipx repo is part of your regualr repo. Edit these lines (remove them) [sipxecs-stable] name=SIPfoundry sipXecs pbx - latest stable version baseurl=http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/sipfoundry/CentOS_5/ gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 then save the file and do a yum clean all y

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update -nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

I'm not on a PC, but the main links on the sipx site have links to what you need. Google sipx download if you can't find it. -Original Message- From: "Gerald Harper" Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:28:57 To: Tony Graziano Cc: Matthew Kitchin \(public/usenet\); ; sipXecs developers Subject:

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

So I did what you suggested, the problem I seem to be having is finding the repo file for 4.2.1 all I see is 4.0.4 and 4.2.0??? From: Tony Graziano Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 3:16 PM To: Gerald Harper Cc: Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) ; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org ; sipXecs developers

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

cd /etc/yum.repos.d rm -f sipxecs.repo (assuming sipxecs.repo is the name of your current repo) wget + the url of the repo in download.sipfoundryt.org like wget http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/sipxecs-4.2.0-centos-i386.repo is a good example On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Gerald Harp

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

again a linux noob (but I am taking notes) what would my wget command be? From: Tony Graziano Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:56 PM To: Gerald Harper Cc: Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) ; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org ; sipXecs developers Subject: Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does n

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

remove the repo that you have and wget the one that is there. dont fiddle with the lines. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Gerald Harper wrote: > Sorry I'm a noob when it comes to editing the files, what part of what > lines should I change to what? > > Thanks! > > *From:* Tony Graziano >

[sipx-users] Latest 4.2.1 Update Fixes LG 6812 Phones

Just noticed that the latest update fixed a very nagging problem on our LG 6812 Phones. Previously when multiple extensions were assigned to the phone, no matter which of the extensions was called. Line 1 would ring and lights up. An issue if you didn't know if the call was for the actual user a

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Sorry I'm a noob when it comes to editing the files, what part of what lines should I change to what? Thanks! From: Tony Graziano Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:47 PM To: Gerald Harper Cc: Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) ; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org ; sipXecs developers Subject: Re: [s

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

use the repo's at download.sipfoundry.org On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Gerald Harper wrote: > Here is the output... > > # CentOS-Base.repo > # > # The mirror system uses the connecting IP address of the client and the > # update status of each mirror to pick mirrors that are updated to and >

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Here is the output... # CentOS-Base.repo # # The mirror system uses the connecting IP address of the client and the # update status of each mirror to pick mirrors that are updated to and # geographically close to the client. You should use this for CentOS updates # unless you are manually pickin

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Try running yum clean all first. If that doesn't help, what is in your repo files? If you aren't sure, paste the output of this: cat /etc/yum.repos.d/* On 8/20/2010 4:30 PM, Gerald Harper wrote: > I am running 4.2.1-018971 and have noticed today that I too have no > voicemail, however if I do a

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

I am running 4.2.1-018971 and have noticed today that I too have no voicemail, however if I do a yum update it tells me there is nothing new. What should I check first? then maybe second? -- From: "Douglas Hubler" Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12

[sipx-users] im+ lite on blackberry :: freaky nice weird (v8.5.1 for 4.6OS)

If anyone cares... I added my sipx xmpp account to my blackberry, a while back it told me there was an upgrade. I upgraded and paid no attention... NOW the IM+ lite client gives me MyBuddy IM's on my mobile phone "it also" talks to my polycom desktop and show an accurate status of "on the phone"

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

it doesnt matter what port the itsp sends to you on as long as they dont send to the same public ip that remoter use. even in the templates you are sending to them on port 5060. "they" dont care, sipxbridge is the only CARING thing and that is for the INVITE for incoming ITSP calls, ONLY. On Fri,

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

but the return RTP traffic would match the iptables filter, right? wouldn't it be redirected to port 5080? guess its time to test voip.ms as a static authentication. (no, I don't want to call them to have the send to port 5080. I want them to send to 5060 and have the iptable rule send to 5080

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

it doesnt interfere with remote users if the call is initiated from sipx to the itsp on port 5060. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael Scheidell < michael.scheid...@secnap.com> wrote: > when you did that, did you have any problems with outbound calls? outbound > calls would go to ITSP: 5060

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

when you did that, did you have any problems with outbound calls? outbound calls would go to ITSP: 5060 on udp, and they would respond back. someone also mentioned that maybe setting this this way would have issues with remote users. On 8/20/10 9:51 AM, Krisztian Ganyai wrote: Hi, In the

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jim Canfield wrote: > That did it!  Thanks for the quick fix Doug. Thank you everyone for being patient with the regressions during this transition, I'm checking a fix for Heather's ITSP issue now. I'm also very interested on how folks are doing with the Java memo

[sipx-users] Phone groups not picking up digit map in latest 4.2.1

Can anyone confirm that digit maps are not picking up on the latest 4.2.1 build? Digit maps seem to be working fine as long as I apply them on each individual phone dial plan. Groups settings (Phones or Lines) seem to be ignored. Polycom 650's/3.2.3 Thanks. -Jim ___

Re: [sipx-users] SIP Trunk --> AA--> SIP trunk call flow

Guys: Looking for some help on thishas anyone tried this:( I get no Audio in each direction. Tony tried it with 2 different ITSPs and it works...but I cannot get it to work with only one ITSP that I have to test. Any other suggestions from group as to where to look for a solution to this

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

That did it! Thanks for the quick fix Doug. Three sipXecs installs in seven days in three different cities. OMG...I need a drink! I can see the light at the end of the tunnel! ...or is that a train coming head on? On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 a

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Fantastic! Updating now. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Jim Canfield > wrote: > > http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8827 > > verified fix and updated repo. Please update your system, you should > see update to only > > From > si

Re: [sipx-users] Bria 3.0 --> 3.1

I had someone tell me today it loads 4 users on new installs. I had removed the profiles for another user, logged out/exited, and logged back in to pickup new configs, still 4 of everyone. In 90 minutes those peope are getting paychecks for 25% of what they are used to! har har har. If someone ne

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Jim Canfield wrote: > http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8827 verified fix and updated repo. Please update your system, you should see update to only From sipxivr-4.2.1-18970.8.1 To sipxivr-4.2.1-18970.9.1 If you do not, you may have to clear yum cache

Re: [sipx-users] Bria 3.0 --> 3.1

Tony, No just one, but this is a fresh install of 3.1.2. I wonder if there is a setting in the User/AppData folders that is causing this, doesn't help your upgraded users though. Kyle On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > argh says charlie brown... are you also getting 4 of e

Re: [sipx-users] Bria 3.0 --> 3.1

argh says charlie brown... are you also getting 4 of every IM contact though? On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Kyle Haefner wrote: > I thought setting: > system:contact_list_storage:resource_list_method="local" re-enabled > presence. I still see presence using 3.1.2 on windows and OSX, I've > n

Re: [sipx-users] Bria 3.0 --> 3.1

I thought setting: system:contact_list_storage:resource_list_method="local" re-enabled presence. I still see presence using 3.1.2 on windows and OSX, I've never seen it on the linux version, but that has so many problems it should still be beta. Kyle On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Tony Grazi

Re: [sipx-users] Bria 3.0 --> 3.1

Anyone hear anything back from CounterPath on this issue? Wish I had 3.0 somewhere. From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Paul Herron Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:58 PM To: mpic...@gmail.com; tgrazi...@myitdepartment.ne

Re: [sipx-users] Registration expiration and registration problems.

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Ali Nebi [an...@iguanait.com] 1. Phone register to Sipxecs as the phone is set to propose expiration time around 360s. Phone register and we see in sipx tra

Re: [sipx-users] Job Failures on Restart after projection completes OK

The Moderator has the version of this message with the file attachments (snapshot and sipviewer xml) as they are slightly over the byte limit. From: McIlvin, Don Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:55 AM To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org Subject: Job Failures on Restart after projection complete

[sipx-users] root password in sipXecs V4.2.1 Fedora install

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have done 2 sipXecs V4.2.1 installations this week on Fedora 12 via rpm from the Fedora repo: [sipXecs] name=sipXecs system on Fedora $releasever - $basearch baseurl=http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/4.2.1/Fedora_$releasever/ enabled=1 gpgc

Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Jim Canfield wrote: > http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8827 I just caught up on email and noticed this. I'll take a look at this right away. ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive:

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

my testing now, with level3 (they currently are sending to port 5080, sending EVERYTHING to port 5080, I think. maybe I am wrong?) you are right. I can't just take ANYTHING from the ITSP coming in on udp port 5060 and fwd to port 5080. here was an outbound call (itsp is sending to my port

Re: [sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

It is workable if you do not have remote workers configured. We tested (successfully) against AT&T but without remote workers following that strategy. Ranga On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote: > this is the only way I could get it to work if you are keeping the ip the > sa

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org > [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Reynolds > [je...@va.com.au] > > Looking at the logs, something appears to be loo

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Reynolds [je...@va.com.au] Looking at the logs, something appears to be looping as there's a lot of "482 Loop detected" messages. Even after hanging

Re: [sipx-users] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8827 On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) < mkitchin.pub...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same for me. I just tested a call on my test machine (fresh 4.2.1 install > from 2 days ago) that should have gone to VM. The call is dropped, and I s

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

I've also just tried disabling the sip trunks, reseting the nat states on the firewall, and starting the nat trunks again. Same story. I've been watching the sip traffic with tcpdump between my sipx server and the ITSP. It seems it does a REGISTER on each trunk every two minutes, with keepaliv

Re: [sipx-users] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Same for me. I just tested a call on my test machine (fresh 4.2.1 install from 2 days ago) that should have gone to VM. The call is dropped, and I see the error below. "2010-08-20T13:51:15.599000Z":24:sipXivr:INFO:local:Thread-8::sipxivr:"SipXivr::run Accepting call-id 947f882a-5908a

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

I used tcp so I could check it. and, see my solution. REDIRECT uses less cpu/bandwith, etc if you are keeping the packets on the same interface. On 8/20/10 9:51 AM, Krisztian Ganyai wrote: Hi, In the iptables status output you sent below, you have *TCP* as the protocol. I think that sho

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

Hi, In the iptables status output you sent below, you have TCP as the protocol. I think that should be UDP. Our iptables status' output reads like this: ... Table: nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1DNAT udp --

[sipx-users] SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR ITSP'S WHO SEND TO PORT 5060 Re: iptables experts: port forwarding.

this is the only way I could get it to work if you are keeping the ip the same. (well, others might have. tshark didn't see the forwarded port) *nat :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 5060 -s 217.37.32.162 -d 10.227.122.31 -

Re: [sipx-users] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Actually this is a HUGE problem. Just did an upgrade on a clean 4.2.1 ezuce install and user voicemail is broken! On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Jim Canfield wrote: > Same problem on a 4.2.1 (previously upgraded from 4.0.4-->4.2.0-->4.2.1) > server. This occured after changing to ezuce repos

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

Why do you use DNAT.., the packet isn't routed anymore please look into using REDIRECT. This is also used to get transit traffic to a local port to support transparent proxies. See more: http://www.linuxtopia.org/Linux_Firewall_iptables/x4508.html kind regards, Nico On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:18:5

Re: [sipx-users] Voicemail does not work after update - nullpointer exception in SipxIVR after updat

Same problem on a 4.2.1 (previously upgraded from 4.0.4-->4.2.0-->4.2.1) server. This occured after changing to ezuce repos from the old sipfoundry repos and upgrading to the most current 4.2.1 build. On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kimball wrote: > > > > Good day, > > I have what appears to b

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

On 20/08/2010, at 6:19 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > Revisit your firewall please... after you can confirm the ITSP sees you > registering or is sending you calls on port 5080... The ITSP has confirmed they see both accounts registering, and they are sending calls through on port 5080. > > You s

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

noop, that didn't do it. remember, this is behind a firewall already, iptables isn't doing natting. ran system-config-securitylevel-tui enabled firewall. edited /etc/sysconfig/iptables to be what you had (ip's changed) restarted iptables: /etc/init.d/iptables restart /etc/init.d/iptables statu

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

alright, I did say I was stupid, right? I edited /etc/sysconfig/system-config-securitylevel and put that in below (ips changed of course) do /etc/init.d/iptables start then ./status and get: Firewall is stopped. iptables --list Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source

Re: [sipx-users] VVX one way video (vvx not sending)

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: > In placing a sip call between xlite, xlite beta 4, bria 2.5, bria 3.0 and > vvx1500 that the counterpath phones can send their video, but the vvx's > cannot. > > Is there a secret sauce or something? > What protocols do you have enabled/dis

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Moh can be added too... Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdep

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Right, that too. Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

I thought the SBCs did some other things as well with refer and such. -Original Message- From: Tony Graziano Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:37:17 To: ; ; Cc: Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why? Example: when I install a patton gateway it is just a

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Example: when I install a patton gateway it is just a local ip address in sipx. Users dial a number and sipx sends the call to the patton. When the user is connected I demonstrate UNPLUGGING the ethernet cable from sipx while on that call because the media is peer to peer, in this case with the gat

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

No. I didn't know anything about that option at the time. I'm still a little fuzzy on how that works. -Original Message- From: Tony Graziano Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:30:26 To: ; ; Cc: Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why? Did you try making t

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Did you try making the itsp an unmanaged gateway? If the phones don't traverse nat, but simply can route to the gateway (carrier) address, this would be feasible otherwise if they traverse nat, its an entirely different discussion, which I think we went through a while back. ===

Re: [sipx-users] Remote office (was: port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Sorry. On a BBerry, and can't respond inline. Normally, all calls go in and out Verizon SIP trunk that uses al local MPLS connection. Corp office is in Nashville, TN and we have facilities all over the country. we can't have the RTP traffic coming back through Nashville. So, normal calls go in/

Re: [sipx-users] port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

Not really. Sleep is so overrated. I can try to open a chat with voip.ms today and see what detail they would provide. I suspect you would simply use the bandwidth.com template and modify the address, etc. For ip based. I think it might be time to discuss the development of a template site that

Re: [sipx-users] SIP digest auth and caller ID

Hint: I use a dialplan custom 55+10 digits send on matched suffix use voipms gateway... Call forward numbers can be 55+10digits. I typically setup 2 carriers anymore. In the event one can't complete certain types of calls, users can make their own workaround. I find some carriers, while competent

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

Perfect this needs to be in the wiki -- Michael Scheidell, CTO SECNAP Network Security -Original message- From: Sven Evensen To: Tony Graziano , Michael Scheidell Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 09:24:37 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [sipx-users] iptables expert

Re: [sipx-users] SIP digest auth and caller ID

I was told they don't use registration they use authentication. And yes a pstn call comes in to a sipx user who has call forward Typical scenario for technical support after hours call is forwarded by user configuration typically to a cell phone. In this instance the cellphone user receiving

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

Since having sipx on the public internet without being behind a firewall should b a supported configuration having a balk if you used a itables is a serious problem . A workaround would it be to start a script on init that did a sleep then ran the firewall script Better yet sipx should recogni

Re: [sipx-users] port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

You can do ip based registration online with a subaccount. But since you didn't do registration and the source port 5080 wasn't in the registration they send to you on 5060 I reported this long time ago during the 4.0.4 days before they have their own profile. I will use them is a test case

Re: [sipx-users] SIP digest auth and caller ID

They don't do registration. They do authentication. Checking registration on and it doesnt do anything -- Michael Scheidell, CTO SECNAP Network Security -Original message- From: Todd Hodgen To: 'Michael Scheidell' , "'Hearty, John'" Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org Sent: Fri, Aug

[sipx-users] VVX one way video (vvx not sending)

In placing a sip call between xlite, xlite beta 4, bria 2.5, bria 3.0 and vvx1500 that the counterpath phones can send their video, but the vvx's cannot. Is there a secret sauce or something? -- == Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 sip: tgrazi...@voice.myitdepart

Re: [sipx-users] port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

I think you need to look at this: http://faq.pfsense.com/index.php?action=artikel&cat=8&id=29&artlang=en&highlight=reflectionighlight=reflection It's not supported for 1:1 but you may be able to wrap port forwards on top of the 1:1 to achieve what you are looking for. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

Are your servers behind NAT? If iptables is running on sipx, what does this mean for your startup script since sipx checks to see if iptables is running? On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Sven Evensen wrote: > We use iptables on several of our machines to overcome the fact that ITSP > cannot sen

Re: [sipx-users] iptables experts: port forwarding.

We use iptables on several of our machines to overcome the fact that ITSP cannot send on 5060, works perfectly. Here is our setup: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-securitylevel # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *nat :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :PREROUTING A

Re: [sipx-users] Increaseing java memory

Hi, I added change inline. Please let me/us know how it went. Additionally on this page(http://www.answerspice.com/c119/1574150/how-to-deal-with-javalangou tofmemoryerror-permgen-space-error) they suggest using the MaxPermSize and some sweeping options. If the change suggested by Matt(and i

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Jesse Reynolds wrote: > So I have two ITSP gateways configured. They each have different > credentials and are set to register on initialization. Their status right > now: > > > Identifier

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

So I have two ITSP gateways configured. They each have different credentials and are set to register on initialization. Their status right now: Identifier Registration Status sipconnect.internode.on.net [Axxx] AUTHENTICATING sipconnect.internode.on.net [Bxxx] AUTHENTICATING After rest

Re: [sipx-users] port 5060/ port 5080, proxy why?

actually, if you are using 1:1 NAT, you might find the configuration much easier using a recent pfsense 2.0 snapshot, where you have much more granular control in outbound rules, etc. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: > I don't think you would need a second system "just" for

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

If memory serves me well (it may not, but it's been less than a week), this is perfectly duplicatable and works for me. Example: ITSP1 create account, register and send/receive calls to ITSP server NY. ITSP2 create secondary (or subaccount), register and send/receive calls to ITSP server NY. BOT

Re: [sipx-users] SIP digest auth and caller ID

I don't understand what you mean by "remote call comes in and is forwarded..." Is this a call from a remote user, who has call forwarding set to the pstn? Is this a call from the PSTN and the internal user has call forwarding enabled to go our over the pstn? In either case, if "normal" inbound a

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

I seem to recall early on with sipxbridge that if you had multiple gateways pointed to the same IP address, that it created problems. Not like this, but that they were treated like one trunk group. This may have been cleared up in a later release, I don't recall seeing any more discussion of it,

Re: [sipx-users] call park enhancement discussion :: "ring-back" pattern

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Todd Hodgen wrote: > Tony, > > > > Could you transfer the call to a specific extension that has a long time > before it goes to voicemail, and then have it ring back to another extension > on the console when it isn’t answered. Have the party that it is parked f

Re: [sipx-users] loop detected in sipxbridge after adding second ITSP to the internal SBC

It's 4.2.1 The 'loop detected' message first appears in the sip trace from sipxbridge to the itsp. sipx sends them repeatedly which results in the itsp putting a 'DoS Lock' on our IP address for 5 minutes, hence the registrations go into 'authenticating' for a time. Perhaps I should turn up t

  1   2   >