Hi. Just a quick reply...
Tony Graziano wrote:
>
> sipx is not designed to be a firewall.
This has nothing to do with firewalls. We run Cisco firewalls and they
work quite well. :) The second interface is strictly for management,
monitoring, imaging, network storage, etc. Typically, the secon
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous limitations I've heard of
in recent times. I'm glad someone mentioned it because it immediately
drops sipx to the bottom of our list as a candidate to replace our
trixbox installation...which lives happily with multiple interfaces.
With "Network Adm
hive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
--
Portfolio | http://work.mixtur.com
Blog | http://blog.mixtur.com
Twitter | @Mixtur
Mark Eissler | 206.965.9
I've taken a look at sipX a few times over the past couple of years to
see if it could replace an Asterisk-based system. Here are my thoughts.
When people say "Trixbox" they really mean two things: 1) the ISO; 2)
the FreePBX GUI. The drag about Asterisk is that until GUIs came along
the thing was
I'm looking to possibly replace our current Asterisk-based PBX when sipX
4.2 rolls out (which I understand will have a much prettier interface).
While 4.x finally makes sipX more "Asterisk-like," in that it can now
operate as a b2bua, the one issue that I don't think has been addressed
yet is t
