[sipx-users] Test Message

Sorry folks, I needed a message to see if the archives were fixed. Don't worry I'm only sending one. Matt P. ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Re: [sipx-users] Remote Workers

The firewall topology setting on x-lite is None. Please note, I am able to call x-lite and snom 370, which are on the same network as snom m3, without any problem. Thanks, On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > What is the registration look like in sipxconfig for the xlite?

Re: [sipx-users] Remote Workers

What is the registration look like in sipxconfig for the xlite? What are the topology/firewall settings for xlite? Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:

Re: [sipx-users] Remote Workers

Below, I what I have gathered. Please, note that in this case that remote worker client, behind NAT device x-lite 4 phone, is calling local snom m3 phone. Looking at the trace the snom m3 is sending rtp packets to [Remote Worker Client Local IP] instead of sipx server. Hence, I am not getting s

Re: [sipx-users] 407 Proxy Authentication Required for INVITE

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of shariksaigal [sharik.sai...@globaledgesoft.com] Thanks for the reply but when I Configure From header which is *not* a configured user of sipX Authenticati

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth betweenSipProxy and SipRegistrar

This did not appear to have any effect. MF still starts out at 20 and decrements to 12 after changing the forward from the extension of the hunt group to the name of the hunt group. Mike Burden [cid:image002.gif@01CB9C58.36619110] Lynk Systems, Inc e-mail: m...@lynk.com

Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org > [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Nikolay Kondratyev > [k...@nstel.ru] > > I know that there are many sip gurus in the li

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth betweenSipProxy and SipRegistrar

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Matt White Have you tried setting the call forwards to the full name and not to extension of the hunt group? If you have a hunt group called "DID1" with an extension of 300, you want to f

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth between SipProxy and SipRegistrar

Yes. As I mentioned in my previous email, MF is 20 on the incoming call, decrements to 12, and stays there (presumably because the rest of the INVITES are the ones happening in parallel that will INVITE the phones.) Each "bounce" from the Proxy to the Registrar and back is causing two decrem

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth betweenSipProxy and SipRegistrar

>>> On 12/15/2010 at 11:06 AM, in message <4e80dd94ad7da0458fa33be8819ab665620609d...@lsvm-mail01.lynk.com>, "Burden, Mike" wrote: >>>Is there a better way to get “incoming calls ring all extensions” functionality without taking such a hit on Max Forwards? Besides consuming Forwards, could >>>

Re: [sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Nikolay Kondratyev [k...@nstel.ru] I know that there are many sip gurus in the list... I encountered the registrar, that uses status 407 in reply to Registe

[sipx-users] List that defines the Polycom syslog logging components

The Polycom phones (IP sound point) allow logging detail level defined at the component level. Does anyone know a source that defines the "components" in terms of the short hand used for (xxx) the possible values in log.level.change.xxx The Polycom documentation only lists them, but does not defi

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth between SipProxy and SipRegistrar

From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Burden, Mike [...@lynk.com] Is there a better way to get “incoming calls ring all extensions” functionality without taking such a hit on Max Forwards? Be

Re: [sipx-users] Incoming call bounces back and forth between SipProxy and SipRegistrar

Is there a better way to get "incoming calls ring all extensions" functionality without taking such a hit on Max Forwards? Besides consuming Forwards, could this be affecting performance/reliability in other ways? I opened a JIRA issue a month or so ago regarding the number of Forwards that s

Re: [sipx-users] Inbound Call Handling Issues

I would start by diagramming out the network. Then identify call paths when you are having call quality issues. At that point you'll have an idea about what equipment needs to be beefed up. If the problems are purely when you are calling in/out of the system and not extension to extension then y

Re: [sipx-users] Mediatrix 4102 Sip

There is an old (5 years) writeup on the 1204. The 4102 is a 2 port FXS access point, not a gateway. Bump? No. Noone spole up because perhaps noone is using them. I would suspect like any other device, configuration and compatibility varies. The device supposedly support DNS SRV and RFC3261, so y

Re: [sipx-users] Mediatrix 4102 Sip

Shameless bump! No-one out there with a positive experience with this piece of kit? Huw >>> "Huw Jones" 12/13/10 9:35 AM >>> Hi folks, Has anyone succeeded in getting a Mediatrix 4102 sip (FXS module) to work properly with SipX? I'm tearing what's left of my hair out here trying to get the t

[sipx-users] authorization theoretical question

Hi all, I know that there are many sip gurus in the list... I encountered the registrar, that uses status 407 in reply to Register instead of 401. What i managed to find out in rfc 3261, is that (if i'm not mistaken) registrar should use 401. But what could be the consequences of this misbehaviou

[sipx-users] DNS errors logged in sipXproxy.log (v4.2.1)

I see enormous log records that return errors for looking up: _sip._tls.sipdomain.tld and Also an A record for the domain itself. I can squelch these by putting DNS in manual mode and adding the two records on a standalone system. I do not think this should be the desired behavior. I know tls i

[sipx-users] sipxbridge and srv records

Hi all, i heve made some tests (sipx 4.2.1) with an ITSP, that have DNS A record pointing to their website, and SRV records, pointing to their SBC (Acme), whose ip address is different from website. And i found that sipxbridge sends Register to correct address - address given by SRV record. Bu

Re: [sipx-users] how to cofigure mediant 1000 with 16 fxo with sipxecs 4.2.1

thank you Tony for your information. phewww.that's what i thought in first place about the mediant 1000 fxo gateways. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Rachmat Afifi > wrote: > > dear all, > > > > i have mediant1000 with 16 fxo. i

Re: [sipx-users] how to cofigure mediant 1000 with 16 fxo with sipxecs 4.2.1

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Rachmat Afifi wrote: > dear all, > > i have mediant1000 with 16 fxo. i also have the .cmp files, which is > M1000_SIP_F5.80A.023.006.cmp. the .cmp file already uploaded to sipxecs > 4.2.1 64 bit edition > > i'm following guidance in > http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/dis

[sipx-users] how to cofigure mediant 1000 with 16 fxo with sipxecs 4.2.1

dear all, i have mediant1000 with 16 fxo. i also have the .cmp files, which is M1000_SIP_F5.80A.023.006.cmp. the .cmp file already uploaded to sipxecs 4.2.1 64 bit edition i'm following guidance in http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/AudioCodes+Gateways but i am confuse during the steps: