Hello,
You really shouldn't need multiple servers, your channel density is
quite low (4-8 channels?), and would only really add as much stress to
your system as an equivalent number of desk set calls. Will the gateways
be residing in one country or multiple countries?
On 8/3/2011 1:01 AM, m...
> That's a common application of the technology. I would suggest keeping
> the routing centralized to the PBX if possible.
Do you mean on one server, probably the originating one.
I've never done this type of application where we might need to have a server
in each city as well as the main one.
Hello,
That's a common application of the technology. I would suggest keeping
the routing centralized to the PBX if possible. It's pretty easy to get
confused if you try to use the LCR's in the units themselves as well as
in the PBX. Organizationally, it's helpful to see all of your routes in
Searching has not lead to finding any information on doing the following. Is
the following possible.
We need to have a main number that people call and after a greeting, are given
the option to key in a persons extension.
Thanks very much.
Mike
___
I am still waiting for more information. The way it would work is that calls
would originate from one city and be routed to several other cities where all
of the remote users would be on cell phones.
Thanks.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@lis
On 08/02/2011 10:40 AM, Matt White wrote:
Tony Graziano 08/02/11 1:19 PM >>>
>>>sounds like time to resurrect:?http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9067
>>>
>
> It should be noted that we run our sipx builds on version 8.3.9 which is
> the currently supported version on SLES11.
>
> We didn
>>> Tony Graziano 08/02/11 1:19 PM >>>
>>sounds like time to resurrect:?http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9067
>>
It should be noted that we run our sipx builds on version 8.3.9 which is the
currently supported version on SLES11.
We didnt have to do anything special to use a later versio
sounds like time to resurrect: http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9067
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 07:13 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM, jnolen wrote:
> >> I have the following error on a version 4.2.1-18890.6.1 system:
>
>
On 08/02/2011 07:13 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM, jnolen wrote:
>> I have the following error on a version 4.2.1-18890.6.1 system:
>>psql: FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound
>> data loss in database "postgres"
>>HINT: Stop
sipXecs 4.0.1?
You should probably consider an update to that system. 4.0.1 was considered
legacy with the release of 4.4.0 and the 4.0 series is up to 4.0.5 which
means 4.0.1 is not really supported anymore.
As far as your issue goes, does this work on one phone and not another? You
weren't enti
--Please enter your response above this line--We have a customer who is uing the PolyCom SoundPoint IP BEM (Button Expansion Module) on some of the phones PolyCom SoundPoint IP 650 SIP They have recently added a BEM to another phone need the settings on the BEM to mirror another user's. They are
The JIRA you pointed to is more an a simple configuration issue that can be
resolved by time conditions and forwarding in the user settings.
The JIRA I pointed to says "I should be able to send the calls to a user(s)
during certain time periods, but control that from the AA, not the user." This
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Max DiOrio wrote:
> I understand that sipX isn’t asterisk, and I’m glad for that. I haven’t
> found too much that sipX doesn’t do that I can’t work around.
>
> ** **
>
> This isn’t so much an issue from the “you can’t work around it” aspect. It
> can actual
I understand that sipX isn't asterisk, and I'm glad for that. I haven't found
too much that sipX doesn't do that I can't work around.
This isn't so much an issue from the "you can't work around it" aspect. It can
actually be seen as more of an issue with UI continuity. Why, when all other
di
Right now the only way to handle that is by using a user with the forwarding
set to that level of granularity.
"Just because Asterisk does it", or another system, doesn't mean they all
can do it. Realize sipx is really aimed at larger enterprises who typically
don't handle calls different at lunch
We have a need for more granular incoming call routing based on time of day/day
of week. In our Asterisk system, we have a working hours AA set up with time
conditions of Weekdays 8-12 and 1-4 play our default AA. Weekdays 12pm-1pm,
play lunch AA and automatically transfer calls to another off
Hey, optimal can't always be free... :-)
Sounds like what you have figured out will work OK.
You could get the lesser VOP @ around $150 or so...
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Max DiOrio wrote:
> Thank you. Looks like you have to go with the paid client of VOP to get
> presence. Since I
Thank you. Looks like you have to go with the paid client of VOP to get
presence. Since I only have 10 clients, I have decided to run Pidgin on my
windows server and log in all clients. Then set the pidgin status to away to
lower their xmpp priority to 0. That way when a client logs in at th
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM, jnolen wrote:
> I have the following error on a version 4.2.1-18890.6.1 system:
>
> Alarm: SPX00030
> Severity: CRIT
> Alarm Text: Process 'CallResolver' failed its configuration test.
> psql: FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound
> d
what do the sipx logs say about the failure? Have you made a recent change?
is the postgres process running?
Since it failed the configtest, I suggest you do a CLI query to confirm the
version.
sipxproc -c CallResolver
and confirm the output is 4.2.1. What is the output of df? Do you indeed
hav
I have the following error on a version 4.2.1-18890.6.1 system:
Alarm: SPX00030
Severity: CRIT
Alarm Text: Process 'CallResolver' failed its configuration test.
psql: FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound
data loss in database "postgres"
HINT: Stop the po
I think your draytek is locking the state of the last registration in its
state tables in some manner. It really sounds like a router issue. This has
not been a reported issue with quite a number of other router/nat devices.
Your draytek is not destroying or allowing the new state from the request
You could run a single client on a machine that has many, many accounts
defined...
You could use Voice Operator Panel which can subscribe to RLS presence (and
XMPP presence)...
Mike
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Max DiOrio wrote:
> I essentially only want to use openfire for presence inform
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <61930>
Message-ID:
I have a sipx box (latest x64 iso) deployed at a site which
uses a draytek vigor 2820 for dhcp and as nat router to wan,
and
I created a jira: http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9795
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony
Graziano
Sent: woensdag 27 juli 2011 14:34
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] IM -
I'll do that when we see the issues again because right now they're working.
The problem is they (Polycom phones) never download the bootrom and app but if
you replace them with exact same files it works.
Like I said, I'm not sure what makes them break because originally they work
just fine th
I essentially only want to use openfire for presence information, and it works
wonderfully if the user is signed into an IM client like Spark.
But if the user isn't signed in, no presence information is shown. This is a
problem as I don't want to run the IM client on all PCs, and some phones do
you will find the current park function does "park/unpark" quite well using
an efk configuration with polycom phones.
On Aug 2, 2011 5:41 AM, "Chris Rawlings" wrote:
> i must have my terms messed up ... i am canceling this
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Chris Rawlings wrote:
>
>> oh btw the v
i must have my terms messed up ... i am canceling this
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Chris Rawlings wrote:
> oh btw the valet parking lots must be able to be monitored by BLF on any
> compatible phone
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Chris Rawlings wrote:
>
>> Please let me know how much
oh btw the valet parking lots must be able to be monitored by BLF on any
compatible phone
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Chris Rawlings wrote:
> Please let me know how much it would be and also if there are any other
> people that would like to chip in.
>
> Valet Parking Lot is not a feature in
Please let me know how much it would be and also if there are any other
people that would like to chip in.
Valet Parking Lot is not a feature in my opinion of large scale office VoIP
implementations but more a feature that helps SMB get off of analogue phone
systems and move into a VoIP infrastruc
31 matches
Mail list logo
