I think there is a need to fix the indexing of the current site and the wiki
cleanup day was a first strp in cleaning up the wiki.
The wiki. Web site, tracker is all sharing the same codebase and sso, so I
think drupal adds another management layer that might not be something that
actually helps.
I'd like to help with the organization of the Web site. I'm not a
programmer, and I'm new to the sipX project, but I think this is an
area that I could contribute.
I find the navigation of the site completely maddening, especially with
the recent changes made in the past week. I think the whol
Ok, my yesterday problem were because of wrong usage of my fax sw.
Today I successfully sent 5 fax messages with different number of pages.
My fax sw on the pc reported that fax transfer was ok.
In the freeswitch log I see spandsp reporting that fax is received ok.
But nothing is sent via email.
The way that sipXecs works is that when sipXproxy receives the 302 Moved
Temporarily with the list of phones that are to receive INVITES from
sipregistrar, it starts issuing the INVITEs based on the q value. If you
have a large number of phones with the same q value, be it the same
extension or di
Polycom says never put the same line on more than 5 phones. Just because you
did it doesn't mean you should.
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
Fax: 434.984.8431
Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
Telep
I can point to at least one installation that has a hunt group with 9
Polycom's on it that are all in a hunt group with their line 3. Each phone
also has their own two extension so it. It works beautifully.
The devil is in the details - IF you are provisioning the same line on
multiple phones,
Create unique lines for your hunt groups and the problem will go away. Its
HOW you are doing it. Tcpdumps will get you nowhere.
Make sure you NEVER call the same line more than once in a hunt group and
NEVER call another hunt group from a hunt group.
What you are doing now is not supported by Pol
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Bryan Anderson wrote:
> @R P - It doesn't matter which phone we unplug to reduce to 7 phones, or
> which phone we delay the ringing. It still works with 7 or less phone, not
> with 8.
those pesky facts get in the way of a prefectly good theory
every time ;)
I suppose the n
It is not recommended to have the same line provisioned on more than 5
polycom phones.
If you are doing this, then DON'T. Polycom has a big "DON'T" on that, and it
would explain a lot. Hunt group or not.
Thanks for solving this mystery. The cause is not sipx or lan.
@R P - It doesn't matter which phone we unplug to reduce to 7 phones, or
which phone we delay the ringing. It still works with 7 or less phone, not
with 8.
@Michael - we have two numbers A and B. A goes to a hunt group with the 8
extensions assigned to line one of the phones, the extension being
Stock wrt54g or does it have ddwrt or something on it?
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Tony Graziano <
tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net> wrote:
> Does the model have alg or spi at all? Newer models have alg but no way to
> configure them off. I'm just saying, if the issue is just this one remote
>
On 19 nov 2010, at 14.22, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Looks like a patch is ready though for someone to try. Have you tried it yet
> Staffan?
For X-8834 I have tried the patches previously supplied by Dale, but haven't
tried the final combined
patch yet. The last (third) patch from Dale solved the
Does the model have alg or spi at all? Newer models have alg but no way to
configure them off. I'm just saying, if the issue is just this one remote
site...
The media on one call type tells me alg. Perhaps a cable modem or other
device with voice service in the way?
T
Linksys WRTG54G.
-M
>>> On 11/20/2010 at 05:14 AM, in message
>>> , Michael
>>> Picher wrote:
What is the remote firewall?
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
Hit send too quickly. Are you sure the ITSP is sending the call to you on port
5080? The trace doesnt say
Yes, the ITSP is working and sending calls to 5080. This is an older system
that is currently supporting about 20 other remote users for at least a year.
So I do not suspect any port issues.
The 24.x is not listed in the subnets and the there is no other SBC outside of
a single instance sip
What is the remote firewall?
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> Hit send too quickly. Are you sure the ITSP is sending the call to you on
> port 5080? The trace doesnt say one way or another. I think the trace in the
> initial invite should indicate port 5080.
>
> On Sat, No
16 matches
Mail list logo
