Mike, You've entertained that discussion on several occasions during the
past. From my perspective you are so focused on a single box solution for
whatever reason, you miss the important part of it - creating a reliable
platform for voice. Over the years, it's no secret that those that run
data
Hijack the thread, it's all useful information anyhow. However, practically
everything mentioned is overkill :).
It's just a remote 4 trunk sipx setup which will use G.729 so there won't be
much bandwidth involved.
Using SIP trunks is the simplest install but I'd love to test a vpn back to the
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To:
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <63311>
Message-ID:
Just curious if anyone made any progress with hooking Lync
directly up to sipx. I'm attempting the same thing
this horse is so dead.
but to beat that drum a little more... cf cards with pfsense are great, but
they don't keep stats through a reboot nor are they able to run other
packages like squid. so it's really a use case need. in all honesty, atom
based cpu's are somewhat overpowered for a cf card inst
> Buy a used Dell Optiplex GX280 or something similar off eBay, slap in a fresh
> drive, a second NIC and use that... $200 and you're done without messing
> around.
Or better yet, buy a fanless 30-60 watt system like this one, preloaded with
PFSense on a CF card: http://store.netgate.com/Netg
This works for me. I'm sure there is a variable that is mapped to the
domain, but I'm not sure what it is. (file:
/etc/sipxpbx/counterpath/counterpath.ini.vm)
#set ($last_sip_line_index = $line_index)
#foreach ($xmpp_account in $line_xmpp_settings)
#set ($line_index = $last_sip_line_index + $vel
thanks for the hijack comment now and to figure out the code words for alix
and wondering what we mean exactly by atom
On Sep 13, 2011 1:51 PM, "Michael Picher" wrote:
> yea, i like the idea of the atom machines better than the alix ones... but
> that's me being a speed freak.
>
> Not that you nee
yea, i like the idea of the atom machines better than the alix ones... but
that's me being a speed freak.
Not that you need that much speed to drive a typical internet connection.
i think we successfully hijacked this one.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> im a fan of bo
im a fan of both. though since pfsense is not a cpu hog I NEVER throw a PC
at it anymore unless I'm in a jam.
alix devices are cheap, diskless and have low power. the smaller the office
the dumber i want the box to be. its better than a consumer device.
i also like the small low power servers lik
I've grown fond of the small appliance. As Tony said, no moving parts,
lower power consumption, very compact, and Compact Flash can be upgraded
offsite as needed with software updates. $19 for a 4gb compact flash these
days, and it's much more than they will ever need.
From: sipx-users-boun
I'm just kinda funny about having a PC... i guess it's just me. i can
replace it in a snap, i know where to get power supplies, etc.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Todd Hodgen wrote:
> $214 buys a PFSense appliance loaded with three ports from Netgate. Works
> great!
>
> ** **
>
> *Fro
Oops, I guess my response was from the office of redundancy.
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-use
$214 buys a PFSense appliance loaded with three ports from Netgate. Works
great!
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Michael Picher
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:44 AM
To: m...@grounded.net; Discussion list for users o
Tony,
We're using Polycom 550's. ITSP is providing trunk only, they aren't doing
anything else, no MOH, no routing, etc.
Where should I look to troubleshoot when it happens?
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC7217.21AB23E0]
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipf
the call is anchored by sipxbridge. moh should be playing and the only thing
that comes to mind is whether the itsp is also using any type of moh (they
should be configured to not do this, btw).
when you are taking the call off hold the beeps you are hearing are
generated by the phone. so the ques
Getting reports from a few users that over the past week or so, some calls that
are placed on hold are getting hung up.
User places call on hold, after a few minutes, go back to the call and they
hear a series of beeps, then the call is gone.
I'm never told about the problem right away so I don
or buy a diskless alix appliance and spend 200 dollars on that and just use
pfsense on that instead. no moving parts is sometimes good in a small out of
the way installation.
On Sep 13, 2011 12:44 PM, "Michael Picher" wrote:
> No.
>
> Buy a used Dell Optiplex GX280 or something similar off eBay, s
No.
Buy a used Dell Optiplex GX280 or something similar off eBay, slap in a
fresh drive, a second NIC and use that... $200 and you're done without
messing around.
If it were me, and it's not (ha Tony)... Don't try to make stuff do what
it isn't supposed to do... you might save a couple $$ up
I'm going to go with sip trunks, thus eliminating the need for vpn.
However, I know this will come up again so have one more question.
I would more than likely use a separate pfsense box to establish a vpn
connection between the remote sipx server, back to my main lan so that I could
give it di
look at the proxy and see if the call is hitting sipx. if it is not then the
phone's internal dialplan is not letting the pattern escape the device, and
it should be addressed there.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:51 AM, wrote:
> Thank you for your answer Mike. But it doesn't seem to work with
> li
Get thee to a Polycom :-)
Sounds like a refer problem... try newer firmware if you haven't already.
Sorry, not much help from me on these LInksys phones. I like my hair.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:51 AM, wrote:
> Thank you for your answer Mike. But it doesn't seem to work with
> linksys s
Thank you for your answer Mike. But it doesn't seem to work with
linksys spa9xx phones... I've already tried everything ;[
When I dial *78+HGext or *78+ext I get just "Call ended".
Regards.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:43:18 -0400, Michael Picher
wrote:
> sort of...
>
> you can pickup a call th
sort of...
you can pickup a call that is ringing in a hunt group by dialing
*78+hgextension
or you can pickup an individual call with *78+ringingextension(directed
call pickup).
not all phones may work properly but if you have Polycom phones and have the
extension that is ringing only define
I could not agree with Tony more. I spent soo much time working with
others in 2008 and 2009 working on the Cisco Plus configurations only to
come to the conclusion that Cisco SIP really isn't standard SIP. There are
so many interop issues with their SIP firmware. It only works right if you
u
I didn't understand exactly what you mean. But does sipX provide
something like "PickUP Group"? It's much more comfortable to use group
call interception (I mean press only ** for example) instead of direct
call interception.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:18:28 -0400, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> Ca
Everyone,
Thanks for all your suggestions. Enabling voicemail, leaving and
deleting a message on the affected line didn't work. I had to switch to
another line, leave and delete a message to clear it. I then switched back
to the original shared line and there have been no further issues so f
Call pickup codes can be changed from the default in sipx.
System>server>(yours)>registrar. I would ensure that *78 is still the pickup
code.
If line "" is registered more than one time, your pickup attempt will
likely fail more often than work, and a limitation of the design (like
pickup up a
Thank you for the answer, but it doesn't work ;[
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:19:53 +0200, pscheep...@epo.org wrote:
> *78
>
> See
>
> http://forum.sipfoundry.org/index.php?t=msg&th=12238&goto=42374&S=58bc77940ab3597c4c454ca47645680d#msg_42374
> [1]
>
> wrote on 13-09-2011 11:04:19:
>
> > Salu
*78
See
http://forum.sipfoundry.org/index.php?t=msg&th=12238&goto=42374&S=58bc77940ab3597c4c454ca47645680d#msg_42374
wrote on 13-09-2011 11:04:19:
> Salut!
> I've got a question about call interception in sipX 4.2. I need to
> build some functionality using my sipX 4.2 server, and no
Salut!
I've got a question about call interception in sipX 4.2. I need to
build some functionality using my sipX 4.2 server, and now I need
something like this:
For example I've got 2 extensions ( and ). Both of them are
included in a group called users12. Now, the phone is ri
A CA refers to a Certificate Authority and not the Certificate itself.
Sorry don't know anything about Packet 8 other than they are a hosted tel
play... Something many around here try to stay away from...
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Bill wrote:
> When you guys say CA forgive me but are y
31 matches
Mail list logo
