Ok thanks. I just sent if off. I did just remember, they mentioned if the
adtran is set for "Network" transfer vs "Local" it wouldn't work.
"For example, the ADTRAN will not send an INVITE in response to a REFER if
the transfer-mode is network"
I tried setting the transfer mode to "Local" and wh
Try sending them my response to the mailing list and see where that gets
you. If they balk at it, then I'll see how I can explain it better to them.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Josh Patten wrote:
> With all the interop testing I've had to do I've become pretty good at
> picking things like
With all the interop testing I've had to do I've become pretty good at
picking things like this out and calling their bluff. Thanks Tony!
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> REFER has been around a while, not everyone supports it in a way that
> makes sense (per the RFC).
>
Its not a big deal. Very glad it is working. This us one if those instances
where a change log would come in handy in deed.
On Dec 12, 2012 4:33 PM, "Tommy Laino" wrote:
>
>
> Tony I am embarrassed lol I know better and I take full
> responsibility for my stupidity.
>
> I changed 2 phones and sen
Tony I am embarrassed lol I know better and I take full
responsibility for my stupidity.
I changed 2 phones and sent the profiles, dropped a VM in
the box and sure enough MWI worked. I will be sending the
remaining profiles tonite. Thanks guys
--
Tommy Laino
Dome Technologies
__
REFER has been around a while, not everyone supports it in a way that makes
sense (per the RFC).
If REFER is supported, the accused scenario will work. If it is not
supported an SBC that can hold the refer locally and bridge the call legs
together and manage the transfers is required.
The questio
It looks like Adtran and Digium are screaming the same thing. I'm going to
post the response I sent to Digium:
According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5589#page-26 (see the refer-to
on page 27) this is a valid transfer scenario. I have attached a valid
capture using FreeSWITCH as a gateway, and
So as I said before I am not well versed in the SIP protocol but this was
Adtrans response.
Thanks Bryan,
I do not believe this to be an ADTRAN issue. The call leg that is being
replaced only exists on that PBX. Check out the Refer message sent to the
ADTRAN:
Rx: UDP src=10.0.31.5:5060 dst=10
If in doubt, try one or two first.
Assuming all the moving parts are OK(DNS,DHCP,LAN), you should be good to
go with send profiles for all polycom phones you have.
-
MM
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Tommy Laino wrote:
>
>
> I think I found my problem. My registration server in my
> phone g
If your DNS is properly configured, the registration should be at the SIP
DOMAIN (not the FQDN).
You can change this to ONE phone and send it one profile to verify.
Manual tinkering s a bad thing. Shame on you.
:>)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Tommy Laino wrote:
>
>
> I think I found my
Its not writable by the public. You can request an account to have edit
rights though.
I always have problems with the differing reports for softphones. I think
it needs to be stated whether the user is local or remote. In general,
using the IP or FQDN is discouraged but not all softphones are dut
I think I found my problem. My registration server in my
phone group is set to the FQDN. Does everyone concur with me
before I resend 200 phone profiles?
--
Tommy Laino
Dome Technologies
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List A
Hi,
I don't think the sipfoundry wiki is writable by the public, but I do have
a problem to report.
On page: http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Twinkle+1.4.2+Softphone
Under user it states:
Input a name, your User name (sipXecs extension or line or number), Domain
(server IP or FQDN); t
Ah. SWAP is fine then. You ought to check the sipxconfig/.log for any
errors, but... Only one system has the VM role enabled. Why don't you set
a phone outside of the group and let sipxconfig manage and set the
parameters, send the phone its profile and see if MWI works.
I tend to think its a DNS
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Melcon Moraes wrote:
> # free -m
>
> Easier to see the info on memory
>
> Have your problems started when you added the secondary server?
>
> What if you just reset the phone to factory defaults and do the
> provisioning using sipXconfig, as it should be.
>
>
Righ
# free -m
Easier to see the info on memory
Have your problems started when you added the secondary server?
What if you just reset the phone to factory defaults and do the
provisioning using sipXconfig, as it should be.
-
MM
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Tommy Laino wrote:
>
>
> Tony top
Sorry mistake in that last post. swap has 6289436k available
and 0k in use.
--
Tommy Laino
Dome Technologies
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
Tony top is showing 12466741k RAM available and swap is at
6289436k. Which log would give the best information and I
will send it to you off list. Also, forgot to mention that
this is an HA system using load balancing. When I built the
system I created the phone groups and I set the registration
No. As long as the phone is able to lookup the domain and resolve the host
records via SRV it should not matter. The phones (unless manually altered)
will subscribe using the user @ domain and not user @ hostname.domain).
>From the CLI (ssh or console) type in "top" and look at the memory usage
an
I have patch #23 installed, but have been having issues retrieving parked
calls.
I thought I heard the subscription forwarding was creating problems with
call park and some other services and that fix was being reverted.
Is it already reverted in patch #23 or is there another patch forthcoming
to
I believe it's the default behaviour to have FQDN as domain alias.
-
MM
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Tommy Laino wrote:
>
>
> Tony I am not sure what top is. I do not believe that we are
> using swap at all. Todd I would think that maybe you culd be
> right but this is all the phones and i
I've start testing on 4.6 and I'm experiencing some problems with snom (3xx
series) provisioning.
1) usually (as indicated on the wiki) i use the port 8090 to let the phone
access the configuration file, but seems that this port is blocked from the
standard firewall configuration (is acceptable to
22 matches
Mail list logo
