Late reply, still reading up.
I agree with Tony's suggestion.
In a perfect world it could be something like the upgrade process of
Infoblox's if anybody knows these boxes.
You load the new firmware onto the master box, the master box distributes
it to all its slaves.
After this is done you c
Sorry that I am posting twice but I want to add folliwing information:
First of all I forgot to thank for your answers :)
I created a pcap and I could see that the redundant server does not send any
traffic at all when it doesn't answer the ping requests. Also there are no
arp requests pending.
As I just had the problem again I could test that.
Even if I ping numeric I see this happen:
64 bytes from 192.168.10.71: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.077 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.10.71: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.074 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.10.71: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.076 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Martin Steinmann
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you mean, that this option applies only to incoming calls from
> the
> >> ISTP
> >> and when it is checked, sipxbridge takes destination number from the
> >> "TO"
> >> header?
> >
> > Exactly. The request URI in such ca
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Martin Steinmann wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean, that this option applies only to incoming calls from the
>> ISTP
>> and when it is checked, sipxbridge takes destination number from the
>> "TO"
>> header?
>
> Exactly. The request URI in such cases often includes the ac
>
> Do you mean, that this option applies only to incoming calls from the
> ISTP
> and when it is checked, sipxbridge takes destination number from the
> "TO"
> header?
Exactly. The request URI in such cases often includes the account number
and not the number dialed. Strictly speaking this is
From: Melcon Moraes [mel...@gmail.com]
Maybe a misconfigured DNS, slowing your name resolution. Even when receiving
the replies every 10 seconds, do you get them in order? I mean, no packet is
lost?
For instance:
$ ping 172.20.0.20
PING 172.20.0.20 (172.
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> I opened a JIRA so maybe this can be addressed at some point.
>
> I am sure there is a user or two who has the desire to run under some
> low sophisticated radar and not use port 5060. I have a packet
> analyzer on my network that recognizes
http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/xecsuserV4r2/Voicemail-Email+Custom+Notifications
Sorry Tony...I'm feeling good today...
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Austin Curry
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:26 PM
To: sipx-users@
http://forum.sipfoundry.org/index.php?S=31861bec28bbba0ddcd99a3d21b86bdc&SQ=0&t=search&srch=Custom+Notifications&btn_submit=Search
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Austin Curry wrote:
> I would like to add some text to the bottom of the notification email that
> is generated by Sipx 4.2.1
>
> I w
I would like to add some text to the bottom of the notification email
that is generated by Sipx 4.2.1
I would like the text to show up in every email sent out of the VM
notification system.
What is the name and location of the file that I need to modify?
Thanks,
Austin
__
Maybe a misconfigured DNS, slowing your name resolution. Even when receiving
the replies every 10 seconds, do you get them in order? I mean, no packet is
lost?
For instance:
$ ping 172.20.0.20
PING 172.20.0.20 (172.20.0.20) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 172.20.0.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=12
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Rene Pankratz
[rene.pankratz.l...@iant.de]
For example if I ping one of the machines i don't get an answer for about 10
seconds but then all pings get a re
It means calls coming from an itsp to port 5080 (default) on sipxbridge.
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: 434.984.842
Do you mean, that this option applies only to incoming calls from the ISTP
and when it is checked, sipxbridge takes destination number from the "TO"
header?
The thing is that when testing sip interworking between sipx and avaya
ip406, I found that avaya routes by the "To" header.
So that when a s
You should also see the wiki for the fix to presence and firewall
issues with bria 3.x.
A patch is upcoming in 4.3 as counterpath changed variables and field
names from 2.5.
On 8/30/10, Norman Branitsky wrote:
> On 10-08-30 9:29 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
>> There is a current (few) bugs in the
The phone being monitored must support dialogue events.
If using the bria, you must also use its xmpp client.
See the wiki article on this.
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
LAN/Telephony/Security an
Some ITSP's do not strictly adhere to (I think RFC3261). So they send
an account number or something else to the proxy in the INVITE part
and send the DID number in the "To:". This should only be checked when
the ITSp sends DID information in the "To:" section instead of the
INVITE section.
Does t
On 10-08-30 9:29 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> There is a current (few) bugs in the XMPP implementation. Assuming you
> are running a 4.2 build, you have to use their phone to get accurate
> presence using the sipx implementation of openfire server.
Right now I have 2 Macs running Bria 3.1 and 10 Sn
ONLY in bria 3.1, not 3.0.
That's the biggest change between 2.5 and 3.0, plus they added support
for HD video and voice codecs.
There is a current (few) bugs in the XMPP implementation. Assuming you
are running a 4.2 build, you have to use their phone to get accurate
presence using the sipx impl
Thanks for all of the input. Have to take off for several days and will get
back at this end of week.
Mike
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:02:27 +, Matthew Kitchin (Public) wrote:
> Just an FYI. I run 64 bit exclusively and haven't had any trouble related
> to it being 64 bit.
>
> --Original Me
On 8/30/2010 8:16 AM, Network Operations Centre wrote:
> Well, we are still using Bria 2.5 and reluctant to upgrade as I don't
> see any need to upgrade. What are the advantages of running Bria 3.1
> compared to 2.5? I can't find "what's new compared to 2.5" info on their
> website.
"Invites wi
On 08/30/2010 01:48 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Laurentiu Ceausescu
> wrote:
>> As long as the 2.5 version is no longer available and everyone is updating
>> their softphone .. I don't think that a single entry for Bria phone is a
>> problem.
>
> Trying to update
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Then parhaps rename it bria 3.x to eliminate confusion when people go to
> use
> it?
>
>
I posted a new patch with this small change.
http://track.sipfoundry.org/secure/attachment/26608/0001-XX-8667-Capture-new-settings-for-bria-3.x.patch
La
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Laurentiu Ceausescu
wrote:
> As long as the 2.5 version is no longer available and everyone is updating
> their softphone .. I don't think that a single entry for Bria phone is a
> problem.
Trying to update the bria phone to 3.x and keep support for 2.5
simultaneo
Hi all,
can anybody please tell, what exactly new 'Route by To Header' checkbox in
siptrunk ITSP account configuration screen means?
(I found some discussion in the list archives where it is mentioned, but i
still do not have clear understanding ...)
Thanks in advance,
Nikolay.
__
Ok - I will do that
Laurentiu
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Then parhaps rename it bria 3.x to eliminate confusion when people go to
> use
> it?
>
> Tony Graziano, Manager
> Telephone: 434.984.8430
> Fax: 434.984.8431
>
> Email: tgrazi...@my
Then parhaps rename it bria 3.x to eliminate confusion when people go to use
it?
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.
As long as the 2.5 version is no longer available and everyone is updating
their softphone .. I don't think that a single entry for Bria phone is a
problem.
Laurentiu
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Does it make sense to leave the existing one and name it bria 2.5 in
> si
Sorry meant bria 2.5 and bria 3.x.
Othwerwise this bria patch would not be able to generate configs for 2.5 and
that is a paid upgrade and people are still running it as far as I know.
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi...@my
Does it make sense to leave the existing one and name it bria 2.5 in
sipxconfig and add another with this patch and name it bria 3.8?
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
LAN/Telephony/Security and Contro
Ran into the next roadblock...
On the development system attempts by the phones to register with
sipXecs are met with 100 Trying responses for a moment before following
with 408 Request timeout. The sipregistrar.log is attached. All services
are green in the web interface except Media Services
Check your HOSTS file... /etc/hosts
Here it is from my test machine:
# Do not remove the following line, or various programs
# that require network functionality will fail.
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
172.16.2.2 sipx.sipxecs.info sipx
Then, check your /etc/resolv.conf file. It s
I just did it on Saturday... works fine.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> No.
>
> There is nothing OS dependent in a backup.
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM, m...@grounded.net
> wrote:
> > Any known issues in making a backup of a 32bit system then restoring it
> onto
We managed to get this resolved locally, it was a misconfiguration of
the Linux part of the system.
Am 30.08.2010 09:48, schrieb David Becker:
>I'm trying to set up SipXecs on a system for development purposes but
> it's somehow misconfigured. I'm using DHCP and DNS on the same machine
> bu
That is I need to compile sipx (with fs) from source to verify that
patch
Can somebody please compile appropriate package for me, so that I'll be able
to install it and verify the patch?
Thanks and regards,
Nikolay.
> -Original Message-
> From: Worley, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:dwor...@av
I'm trying to set up SipXecs on a system for development purposes but
it's somehow misconfigured. I'm using DHCP and DNS on the same machine
but only configured them after installing the EDE and everything.
Running sipxecs-setup-system doesn't fix it, immediately after the
statuses will show
Hello,
we have a SipX 4.0.4 System that sometimes gets into a state where Master &
Slave do not answer to network requests. Or at least do not answer at once,
but after a few seconds they answer to all reuqests at once.
For example if I ping one of the machines i don't get an answer for about 10
se
This time the problem is much more unpleasant then in xx-7460.
One user sets russian display name, and other users may loose a big part of
the functionality .
I left my comment on XX-8840, opened by Alexey.
Thanks and regards,
Nikolay.
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Steinmann [m
39 matches
Mail list logo
