Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

they are or were pretty useless up in my neck of the woods. On Monday, September 5, 2011, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) < mkitchin.pub...@gmail.com> wrote: > I definitely don't want to do PRIs, and I do want failover. I will check with TW and confirm they don't have a different product. > I keep

Re: [sipx-users] Cisco Integration for Voicemail

Hi Tony. My x-lite client is configured as follows: User ID: 2311 Domain: voip.system.ads (also tried hostname and IP here) Password: Authorization Name: 2311 I have the following DNS records _sip._udp.voip.system.ads SRV sip1.voip.system.ads sip1.voip.system.ads A 192.168.41.91 My SI

Re: [sipx-users] Configuration test failed

1. 172.16.64.255 means the mask is at least more than a /24, since if it is a /24 (or smaller) this would most likely be a broadcast address. 2. If the hostname is pcc-sipx-1.corrections.state.la.us, then the sipdomain would be corrections.state.la.us, no

Re: [sipx-users] Cisco Integration for Voicemail

are you registering by hostname, ip or sipdomain? On Sep 5, 2011 3:24 PM, "Stephen Barry" wrote: > Hello > > I am trying to use Sipx for voicemail on Cisco Call Manager, I am keen to exploit IMAP integration. > > I am able to leave myself a voicemail. However MWI is not working. > > My test extens

[sipx-users] Cisco Integration for Voicemail

Hello I am trying to use Sipx for voicemail on Cisco Call Manager, I am keen to exploit IMAP integration. I am able to leave myself a voicemail. However MWI is not working. My test extension is 5397 which is an extension on Cisco Call Manager. I have defined this as a user on SipX to enable VM

Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

I definitely don't want to do PRIs, and I do want failover. I will check with TW and confirm they don't have a different product. I keep finding things that seem to point to a more robust product: http://www.twtelecom.com/Documents/Resources/PDF/cs/CaseStudy_BoiseState3.pdf "Eliminated six gatewa

Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

It might also be worth mentioning voile.Ms costs almost nothing to test or try compared to a pri approach. On Monday, September 5, 2011, Tony Graziano wrote: > The advantage I see with voip.Ms is that they have automated failover per number. At the same time you would need to address firewall nee

[sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

The advantage I see with voip.Ms is that they have automated failover per number. At the same time you would need to address firewall needs for each site versus the cost for a pri gateway(s). Voip.Ms has a how to for sipx on their wiki now. On Monday, September 5, 2011, Matthew Kitchin (public/usen

Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

If I went with a separate ITSP, is voip.ms everyone's favorite provider these days? It would be two 50+ handset locations and many 6 to 10 handset locations. On 9/5/2011 6:01 AM, Michael Picher wrote: The data portion of their solution is typically either a Hybrid Fiber/Coax solution (like mos

Re: [sipx-users] Karoo Bridge: Unable to Process ACK

Attached is the sanitized log from what you sent to me off list. If you will notice, ACK was properly sent to your ITSP. For some reason, your ITSP then sends the ACK back to Karoo Bridge. See third ACK. That is the ACK that was not matched to any 2xx retransmission. So the question to ask

Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs and VoIP from TW Telecom

The data portion of their solution is typically either a Hybrid Fiber/Coax solution (like most of your cable modems at home) or a Dedicated Fiber solution with some Cisco gear at the customer prem (supports higher bandwidth & more services). Their voice solutions are either analog or PRI type hand