wow, good luck with that... no firewall enabled by default on sipXecs
btw
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Tommy Laino tomla...@gmail.com wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To:
Tim,
I think the message here from all involved is that cutting corners gives
you the results you have experienced.
A VoIP system will quickly point out the problems with your network. Good
network switches, properly configured are important to larger installations.
Cheap phones stink, my
A familiar refrain here is:
Use good phones. Use good switching gear (and a vlan for voice). If
you are supporting trunking and/or remote users have a thorough
understanding of your firewall to ensure it is compatible or use a SBC
that can deliver the desired results.
Pick and choose your ITSP
Tim,
No one has accused you of being a troll and several of us have provided
advise regarding LAN, firewall and PSTN setup. I would start with those
recommendations and report back with any further issues to be addressed.
On Feb 17, 2012 6:21 AM, Tony Graziano tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
wrote:
Tim, I welcomed your frank email, but I'm weird like that ;)
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Tim Ingalls t...@sharedcom.net wrote:
Routing inbound calls to an auto-attendant worked great for a long time and
then just stopped working one day. After connecting the call, visitors were
greeted
Hi Tim,
Sorry to hear you've had trouble...I remember when we first got
rolling feeling the same way. However, the mistakes we made early on
we've corrected and it is my completely biased opinion that we have a
pretty stable setup now between our network, gateways, servers and
phones.
We've had
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To:
caceoiqfhqokk2s3df2hme4v6xmo8bawmf7r4q--q6uipids...@mail.gmail.com
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 66151
Message-ID: 10267.4f3dd...@forum.sipfoundry.org
I've been
We of course have an ever increasing amount of this on the commercial side.
The wiki, like the sipXecs software, is a community project. If you have
suggestions or contributions you think would make things better, then don't
just sit back and wait for somebody else to do it. More input and more
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To:
CAAHujP6yyGWXFCF7q+FK9r+9G0gri=4_yinac_2tjezsecv...@mail.gmail.com
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 66153
Message-ID: 10269.4f3df...@forum.sipfoundry.org
Mike,
I
I think that bringing up Zenoss is a bad example. The code and
documentaqtion is openly available for sipXecs. Documentation and User
Manuals are two different things.
BTW -- Zenoss is based on Zope. Zope is cool and a neat way to handle
network monitoring, but isn't zope full of security holes
I too would like to see a side by side comparison of the current OpenUC
offering versus SipXECS 4.4.
We migrated from an old ShoreTel v6 system to a SipXECS 4.2-4.4 system
about 8 months ago. We're small with about 30 users, do lots of
conferencing and only a dozen hard phones, a mix of Polycom
http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipxecs-open-source-edition
--martin
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Burleigh, Matt
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs
Um, I think your mistaken, you were probably thinking of PHP. The National
Vulnerability Database (CVE/CCE) has 30 results for Zope and 19,656 results for
PHP. Zope has a very impressive tracked record, if you ask me.
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
I would think that there are many eZuce resellers that are jumping on the
opportunity to show the difference between the open source solution and the
eZuce solution after these questions. It's a great sales opportunity for
eZuce resellers, to show how they differentiate that product from other
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: SipXecs Forum
In-Reply-To:
camgknjuuppmrzst5yu43ka1npzh_dw2z_usj4fpm4mjdfgk...@mail.gmail.com
X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 66159
Message-ID: 1026f.4f3e0...@forum.sipfoundry.org
Tony
Update #15 : Fri, 17, Feb
2012==- **
No security updates in this update **- ISO has *not* been rebuilt as
decided in release policy. Yum updateafter installation is recommended
for getting these updates.- Thank you all for your continued
I did read the book. There are lots of important technical details
that are not in the book.
Thanks,
Tim Ingalls
Shared Communications, Inc.
801-618-2102 Office
On 02/16/2012 07:29 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
You should read the book.
On Feb 16, 2012
The book was written based on an earlier version of sipx but the concept is
no different. I have heard a lot of positive feedback from people who have
ready the book.
If you stop being vague and ask questions while providing detail I'm sure
you will get the answers you seek, if you are actively
I appreciate your feedback. You're right. Being specific is helpful.
However, I was trying to not be totally specific, because I'm
bringing up a few main general points:
1. Learning and deploying sipXecs correctly is very complex. The
learning curve is very steep
Thanks for the great comments. I agree that QOS is difficult and
PSTN connections typically just work. But I'm trying to leverage the
cost savings of using SIP trunking with an ITSP in order to help
customers justify switching their phone system. In this tough
economy,
Tim - we really appreciate the feedback. The following might help add some
additional perspective:
- We need the community's help to keep improving the open source
edition, especially as it relates to documentation on our Wiki and
elsewhere, but also for specific features important
Cost savings on trunks is not exclusive to ITSP's and SIP trunks. The
providers of ISDN did not just roll over and abandon their networks, they
reduced their prices and are rigorously competing with the ITSPs. In many
cases, PRI can be much less than SIP trunks, and provide for that ultimate,
Michael,
On 02/17/2012 03:02 AM, Michael Picher wrote:
Tim,
I think the message here from all involved is that cutting
corners gives you the results you have experienced.
If you look at my setup that I listed above in my
Todd,
Great points. So before I totally give up on the idea of using an
ITSP and SIP trunking, do you know of any ITSPs that really do a
good job and are compatible/certified with sipXecs?
Thanks,
Tim Ingalls
Shared Communications, Inc.
801-618-2102 Office
On 02/17/2012 07:12 AM, Robert Durst wrote:
Tim,
We receive most of the sipx
emails (now in my junk folder) as we have previously
tested sipx. After seeing this, I thought Id respond with
Hello,
I'm going to address your voip.ms example because I'm sure no vendor like
Avaya or Cisco ever bothers to document some 3rd party service provider
specific settings like secret NAT settings for voip.ms
VoIP is complex. Damn - it's REALLY complex and nowdays it feels even more
complex than
With some meals, nothing can replace a good whine.
Especially with a generic bottle with no label of what ingredients are in
it. Leaves you wondering what you just drank that left that terrible
aftertaste.
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
I'm hoping we can not resort to name calling, Robert. I'm just
trying to have a serious conversation so I can stop messing around
with unsuccessful configs and get out and start selling.
Michael, I believe that you have multi-thousand-seat systems. Are
you using
Tim - as I read through this thread I think you got your answers. Grow up
and take charge. You can do it - many others have before you. If not there
is always Asterisk.
--martin
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Douglas,
On 02/17/2012 07:29 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
Tim, I welcomed your frank email, but I'm weird like that ;)
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Tim Ingallst...@sharedcom.net wrote:
Routing inbound calls to an auto-attendant worked great for a long time and
then just stopped working
Todd,
This user list is for USERS. It's even in the name of the list:
sipx-users. Maybe you should start a new list called sipx-prospects
so that you can protect your people from seeing any negatives in
sipXecs. If this isn't the forum for detailing problems and
Martin,
I'm trying to grow up. I really am. I'll try to take charge. I
really will. Thanks for the advice and the encouragement.
Does eZuce pay you to offend potential partners? What a great job to
have! Oh, wait, you're the President and CEO of Ezuce! So you
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Tim Ingalls t...@sharedcom.net wrote:
I appreciate your feedback. You're right. Being specific is helpful.
However, I was trying to not be totally specific, because I'm bringing up a
few main general points:
1. Learning and deploying sipXecs correctly is very
Martin,
Thanks,
Tim Ingalls
Shared Communications, Inc.
801-618-2102 Office
On 02/17/2012 08:30 PM, Martin Steinmann wrote:
Tim we really appreciate the
feedback. The following might help add some
I don't think any of the responses to you have been unprofessional,
that was uncalled for.
I'll encourage anyone reading this thread to ignore the poster until
(if) he musters up some civility.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Tim Ingalls t...@sharedcom.net wrote:
Martin,
I'm trying to grow
35 matches
Mail list logo
