> I never recommend restoring and older version to a newer one. others may
> disagree.
Ya, I've seen your posts about this. Just kinda stuck and looking for the best
option at this point. If a backup/restore works, that would be my best
solution. I can just see where things will head if I start
it would be a good thing to ask. I always build a virtual system or
standalone box to use for migration on a large system. this allows me to
test the upgrade procedure and update the database and schemas to the latest
version. then I can restore to the new system or roll back to the production
syst
Anyone try it? Is it possible?
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:46:39 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
> i think you might do well to test it against your trunks before deploying
> it.
I'll go that route if I have no other options I guess.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
L
I think this jira issue is a duplicate. NAT compensation is handled by
TLS now. Can you confirm that it isn't using bria or anything else that
could register? I tried using my Polycom just now and I am getting the
same result. Polycom ignores the custom cert. Is there anything that
changed
you still need to manually e sure the sip tls srv record is made at the dns
server and onboard to sipx.
this is more problematic in an ha environment.
I don't think until the JIRA is closed it makes sense to try tls in a remote
user environment.
On May 25, 2011 6:46 PM, "andrewpitman" wrote:
>
>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To: <4d5d0a33.1040...@ezuce.com>
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <60175>
Message-ID:
Joegen Baclor wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 06:44
> You need to make sure that the
My fingers are still crossed, but things are looking good so far.
There was one handset that answered 90% of the calls and did 90% of the
paging. It was the one involved when the Loop Detected message was
occurring.
Yesterday at noon, we swapped that handset over to a brand new cat 6
drop with n
i think you might do well to test it against your trunks before deploying
it.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> Based on the ones you've done, do you think it would be safe to upgrade the
> 4.2.1 to 4.4.0.
>
>
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:23:58 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
>
Based on the ones you've done, do you think it would be safe to upgrade the
4.2.1 to 4.4.0.
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:23:58 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
> you would never undo the last update.
> On May 25, 2011 1:18 PM, "m...@grounded.net" wrote:
>> Wait now, are you guys talking about doing an upg
you would never undo the last update.
On May 25, 2011 1:18 PM, "m...@grounded.net" wrote:
> Wait now, are you guys talking about doing an upgrade from 4.2.1 to 4.4.0?
> I just wanted to update a 4.2.1 system but I don't have a problem
upgrading if everyone feels it's safe to do so.
>
> My only ne
Wait now, are you guys talking about doing an upgrade from 4.2.1 to 4.4.0?
I just wanted to update a 4.2.1 system but I don't have a problem upgrading if
everyone feels it's safe to do so.
My only next concern is that I've already run the update earlier, still not
sure if everything will be ok
> um, look at the repo file on your system. it is probably the 4.2.1 repo.
> there was an small update pushed out to 4.2.1 yesterday i think, so if YOUR
> repo points to 4.2.1, it is doing exactly what the repo tells it to do.
It is the 4.2.1 repo. I would not have wanted to update directly betwee
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> I am now seeing phone lockup issues when the sipx hostname is the same as
> the sip domain name.
mike p. and i saw a similar thing and strangely for this customer,
removing the SRV records from DNS actually stopped the lockups! Of
course t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM, m...@grounded.net
> wrote:
> > Well, interesting then because my system didn't get updated to 4.4.0 when
> I ran the update, it only updated 4.2.1.
>
> This is also a departure how sipxecs release eng ran
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> Well, interesting then because my system didn't get updated to 4.4.0 when I
> ran the update, it only updated 4.2.1.
This is also a departure how sipxecs release eng ran in the past I
think. You have to explicitly install a new sipxec
um, look at the repo file on your system. it is probably the 4.2.1 repo.
there was an small update pushed out to 4.2.1 yesterday i think, so if YOUR
repo points to 4.2.1, it is doing exactly what the repo tells it to do.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:34 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> > ive always up
> ive always upgraded by removing the packages and updating to 4.4.0x.
>>Do you mean a full re-install?
> no, just the complaining freeswitch package and dependencies (which are all
> codecs). they reinstall when you update.
Well, interesting then because my system didn't get updated to 4.4.0 w
no, just the complaining freeswitch package and dependencies (which are all
codecs). they reinstall when you update.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 12:10:46 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
> > ive always upgraded by removing the packages and updating
+2,823,586,236,734,785,694,573,455,267,848
We've recently switched internal naming conventions due to external naming
conflicts and sipXecs is one of the few remaining systems we can't change
without a lot of nasty downtime.
Josh Patten
Brazos County Network Engineer
979.361.4676
From: sipx-us
On Wed, 25 May 2011 12:10:46 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
> ive always upgraded by removing the packages and updating to 4.4.0x.
Do you mean a full re-install?
Would I simply yum remove sipx?
How would I make sure that users/settings/vm's were not lost?
On the other hand, have you tried a backup/
I have been repeatedly hit with a lot of work when migrating a domain
(mergers/buyouts, etc.). Also, once in a while, I like to build an entirely
new system and migrate all the data to it.
I am now seeing phone lockup issues when the sipx hostname is the same as
the sip domain name.
I know this h
ive always upgraded by removing the packages and updating to 4.4.0x.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> So the real question is, since sipx-freeswitch was 32bit anyhow, it didn't
> get updated but is that a problem? Will it still work with the rest of the
> system which
So the real question is, since sipx-freeswitch was 32bit anyhow, it didn't get
updated but is that a problem? Will it still work with the rest of the system
which did get updated?
If so, then it's a non issue, I simply reboot, all the new things are put into
use but I don't get the 64 latest sip
rpm -ql sipx-freeswitch gives me;
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/freeswitch.ld.so.conf
/etc/monit.d
/etc/monit.d/freeswitch.monitrc
/etc/sysconfig/freeswitch
/usr/local/freeswitch/*
> then do
> rpm -e --justdb sipx-freeswitch-1.0.5-17188.16739.2.i386
Isn't there a problem with rpm or yum not always knowing w
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:28 AM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> Bit nervous about doing that because it removes others at the same time and
> I'm not sure if I should use nodeps or not.
> Too easy to break the system when things get into dep problems.
CAVEAT: I haven't tried this, just giving
> unfortunately sipxecs 4.2.1 yum repo mixes 32 and 64 bit archs and
> although the OS is supposed to do the right thing, often folks get
> into situations were system has 32 and 64 bit rpms installed. i'm not
> sure how it gets into this situation.
I didn't come across any problems when building
> Why would the package contain a 64 bit
> file when a 32 bit file is installed?
> Is this a 32 or 64 bit machine?
2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Sep 29 12:50:31 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
GNU/Linux
64bit hardware. It was built using the repo, not from ISO.
_
Bit nervous about doing that because it removes others at the same time and I'm
not sure if I should use nodeps or not.
Too easy to break the system when things get into dep problems.
On Wed, 25 May 2011 11:22:19 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
> you have to yum remove the package in order to upda
Why would the package contain a 64 bit file when a 32 bit file is
installed?
Is this a 32 or 64 bit machine?
Tony Graziano wrote on 25-05-2011 17:22:19:
> you have to yum remove the package in order to update properly i
think...
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> I haven't updated my 4.2.1 in a while so when doing it I get the following
> error.
> Thought I would check with the list before rebooting, just in case.
>
>
> Transaction Check Error:
> file /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/fsxs from install
you have to yum remove the package in order to update properly i think...
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> I haven't updated my 4.2.1 in a while so when doing it I get the following
> error.
> Thought I would check with the list before rebooting, just in case.
>
>
> Tr
I haven't updated my 4.2.1 in a while so when doing it I get the following
error.
Thought I would check with the list before rebooting, just in case.
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/fsxs from install of
sipx-freeswitch-1.0.5-17188.16739.2.i386 conflicts with file from
no.. still not working.. I tried that before.. i get the same error..
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Kumaran <
thiru.venkateshwa...@ttplservices.com> wrote:
> Hi Irena,
> Change the VoIP Endpoint to PSTN Number and try the ring test and call
> center feature and let me know whether its wor
I posted a trace to the list a month or so ago - and submitted a ticket request
to Patton (with a sip trace and patton sip debugging).
Their final response:
== Please reply above this line ==
It is worth a try. Honestly I am not certain what is causing the failure. I'm
still looking int
Do you have a call trace of an example? Since the call is not anchored on
the sipx server i would assume the patton doesn't like the "intercept"
request. Actually, a call trace and a sip debug at the patton would be most
helpful. If it does not work and they (patton) explain why, it sounds like a
r
Hi Irena,
Change the VoIP Endpoint to PSTN Number and try the ring test and
call center feature and let me know whether its working...
Also: Put the VoIP Endpoint Data = sip:agent@FQDN
Regards,
Kumaran T
Kumaran wrote:
> Hi Irena,
>While logging in to Agent UI(via web),what of you se
Here is my scenario:
We have a PRI connected to a Patton 4960.
My user has a User ID of 5001.
When someone calls my line (301-334-5001) from the outside (thus traversing the
PRI) and I try to do a directed call pickup *785001 from another phone – the
call is dropped.
We primarily use Polycom
It works for me, but call pickup is a bit picky in my environment.
When Bria calls Bria then Tandberg C40 can pick up
When Patton calls Bria then Tandberg C40 can't pick up.
Maybe your problems are caused by similar effects.
For the rest most of my call pick ups work fine.(haven't tested ever
Hi,
Found something out, could it be a problem if the two servers are both on
different time zones?
Primary is in: CEST
Secondary is in: EDT.
Henry
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Henry Dog
Although it is testing the same thing that sipXecs is testing via its web
page, it is different in that it can test from subnets that the sipXecs
server might not be on. I have used it, and it has helped to demonstrate
some issues on windows server configuration that keeps sipXecs from working
cor
41 matches
Mail list logo
