Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

This is probably the most sensible cuase. a deadlock on transport queues. Thanks for the info. Can you update the jira with this? including the pertinent logs if possible. On 08/03/2012 06:27 AM, andrewpit...@comcast.net wrote: Okay, I uploaded the registrar and proxy logs from the time in

[sipx-users] Number of alias's on a user or auto attendant

Often times I put my extra DID numbers under either an Auto Attendant, or a User, with a recording announcing it is a non-working number at the customer site. This allows for people dialing disconnected numbers in the office a means of getting to an operator, another department, another person vi

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

Okay, I uploaded the registrar and proxy logs from the time in question to the JIRA. AFAICT, the time this happened was at 2012-07-31T18:52:10. A couple of things from sipXproxy.log that may or may not be pertinent: At 18:41:32, there are a couple of socket errors. Right before the hang at 1

Re: [sipx-users] sipxbridge stopped working after a semaphore timeout

Please update jsip (as I've suggested a few times before ). Then see if there is issues with it and please post s new trace. I'll post a new jsip jar here soon but you can roll your own as well On Aug 2, 2012 12:26 PM, "Sven Evensen" wrote: > I dont have a whole lot of info, but the customer repo

Re: [sipx-users] NAT traversal ports on 4.4

hence the contention for 5060... that why bridge runs on 5080. On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Kurt Albershardt wrote: > Did not realize this applied only to remote users and not to trunking. > > thanks! > > > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 13:29 , Tony Graziano wrote: > > Don' confuse NAT traversal for

Re: [sipx-users] NAT traversal ports on 4.4

Did not realize this applied only to remote users and not to trunking. thanks! On Aug 2, 2012, at 13:29 , Tony Graziano wrote: > Don' confuse NAT traversal for remote users (5060) with trunking (5080). > > 5080 is used for trunking. 5060 is used for media relay. Kinda, sorta, real > differen

Re: [sipx-users] NAT traversal ports on 4.4

Don' confuse NAT traversal for remote users (5060) with trunking (5080). 5080 is used for trunking. 5060 is used for media relay. Kinda, sorta, real different. What you are seeing is correct. On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Kurt Albershardt wrote: > Just noticed that my NAT Traversal page (st

Re: [sipx-users] NAT traversal ports on 4.4

no. On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Kurt Albershardt wrote: > Just noticed that my NAT Traversal page (static public IP) is set for > ports 5060/5061. If I'm using sipXbridge, should this be 5080/5081? > > > thanks~ > ___ > sipx-users mailing list > s

Re: [sipx-users] Cisco 7940 Consultative Transfer

We'll be working on a 'cisco compatibility service' but this will likely be a commercial component. The thought is that there will be a SBC component that will supply signaling to the Cisco phone in a manner that it likes better. The Cisco phone's SIP implementation, while it might work ok with a

[sipx-users] NAT traversal ports on 4.4

Just noticed that my NAT Traversal page (static public IP) is set for ports 5060/5061. If I'm using sipXbridge, should this be 5080/5081? thanks~ ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archi

Re: [sipx-users] Cisco 7940 Consultative Transfer

Joegen and Tony, Thanks for the updates. Yes my system is updated. I guess I will look into switching to Polycom phones ASAP. Thanks. ~Noah On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:31 PM, Joegen Baclor wrote: This is the record route issue he is facing and this is a known bug on cisco phones and will remain b

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

Yeah, we actually "licked" it down to an allow list for only our customers on the ASA. ;) I believe before it actually gets to that point we have actually already filtered with country block. The phones are indeed all Polycom 3.2.6/4.3.1. The big variable here is that the firewalls on the rem

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

Yeah, we've ruled that out. If it is a UA sending malformed SIP traffic, sipXproxy still should drop that or respond with an error (and maybe write a log entry to that effect) but it should not cause it to lose its socket connection to sipregistrar and have to be restarted. Tony Graziano wrote

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

do you lick down a lot of ports? :-P i think these are all Polycom phones with 3.2.6 firmware. the only other thing a bit odd is they are coming through a Cisco ASA which is known to work but could be a question mark. I think they were going to try to route around this and then in through a pfS

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

The malformed crap could easily come from a misconfigured or badly designed UA by the way. Also realize I have never seen it even with remote user traversal WHEN I lick down pps to port 5060 in the firewall to a sane functional number. One assumes you inspected the logs to verify there was no outsi

[sipx-users] sipxbridge stopped working after a semaphore timeout

I dont have a whole lot of info, but the customer reported that the SIP trunk was blocked and a restart of SIP trunking on our side resolved it. And this is supposedly 3-4 time it happens. What I do see in the attached sipxbridge.log is a semaphore timeout at 2012-07-30T09:05:14.779000Z followed b

Re: [sipx-users] new patch for XX-10177

Hi Joegen! I dug around a bit in the code, and I might have a starting point for where to look for this... When this bug has manifested itself, we've been able to recover by restarting just sipXproxy, and not both proxy and registrar, so the issue doesn't seem to be with registrar. When the se

Re: [sipx-users] XMPP federation questions... clear up the mystery?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Robert B wrote: > >> Tony, >> >> Thanks for the information... the "alternate IM" address is in the >> Contact Information screen? I'll explore that, but it looks fraught with >> complexity... >> > > if

Re: [sipx-users] XMPP federation questions... clear up the mystery?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Robert B wrote: > Tony, > > Thanks for the information... the "alternate IM" address is in the Contact > Information screen? I'll explore that, but it looks fraught with > complexity... > if federation is turned on, dns records are there publicly and nat is conf

Re: [sipx-users] XMPP federation questions... clear up the mystery?

Tony, Thanks for the information... the "alternate IM" address is in the Contact Information screen? I'll explore that, but it looks fraught with complexity... :O The pidgin route may work... I am a long time user of Pidgin (back when it was still call Gaim), but I can't find anything in the

Re: [sipx-users] Fwd: Your message to sipx-users awaits moderator approval

make the email message smaller... On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Sven Evensen wrote: > Where is the moderator. Please approve this so I can get an answer, it is > urgent. > > Sven > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: > Date: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:48 PM > Subject: Your message to

Re: [sipx-users] Fwd: Your message to sipx-users awaits moderator approval

post your 2.4MB file somewhere else (pastbin.com ?) and send the list a url. On 8/2/12 9:34 AM, Sven Evensen wrote: Where is the moderator. Please approve this so I can get an answer, it is urgent. Sven -- Forwarded message -- From:

[sipx-users] Fwd: Your message to sipx-users awaits moderator approval

Where is the moderator. Please approve this so I can get an answer, it is urgent. Sven -- Forwarded message -- From: Date: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:48 PM Subject: Your message to sipx-users awaits moderator approval To: sven.even...@onrelay.com Your mail to 'sipx-users' with the

Re: [sipx-users] XMPP federation questions... clear up the mystery?

I think this is pretty easy to understand. If you turn on federation and have the proper firewall rules to allow it, the user can set their "alternate" IM address in the portal (john...@gmail.com or whatever) and have the "mybuddy" alerts sent to their google account via instant messages (you recei

[sipx-users] XMPP federation questions... clear up the mystery?

I may be completely misunderstanding the capabilities of XMPP federation, so I wanted to post the question to the group here. I have a client who is using Google Apps for Business right now. They use Gmail, Gdocs, and of course Gtalk. In this scenario, is there any value (or capability) in th