>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Graeme Allen
> wrote:
> > Has the Grandstream GXV3140 been added to the
> > configuration/provisioning interface of SipX, if not, are
> there plans to add it?
>
> As an initial test, have you tried configuring it as a GXV3000?
> Can you (or anyone reading
You also need to change the sipXconfig source code (which generates
freeswitch/freeswitch.xml) or the INVITE will get rejected with "488 Not
Acceptable Here":
--- a/sipXconfig/neoconf/etc/freeswitch/freeswitch.xml
+++ b/sipXconfig/neoconf/etc/freeswitch/freeswitch.xml
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> -Original Message-
> From: Staffan Kerker [mailto:ietf-li...@kerker.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:24 AM
> To: Saint, David (David)
> Cc: sipx-users
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sipxconfig on seperate host?
>
>
> On 18 jun 2010, at 15.07, Saint, Da
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:24 PM
> To: Staffan Kerker; sipx-users
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sipxconfig on seperate host?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> Josh Patten
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:00 PM
> To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Audiocodes gateways disable voice de
Hi,
Using an older version of sipXecs 4.1.7-018256 I had an Internal SBC ITSP trunk
registered with SIP provider les.net. The trunk was working fine and the status
showed AUTHENTICATED. When I checked on the trunk a couple of weeks later it
was showing a state AUTHENTICATION_FAILED and would no
On 05/15/2010 11:54 AM, Josh Patten wrote:
When using SLA/BLA with an Audiocodes Mediant 1000 I noticed that when placing
calls on hold and retrieving them on different phones the caller ID changes
from whatever came over the PRI to the following format:
121 where 1 is the trunk number
> -Original Message-
> From: Mossman, Paul (Paul)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:19 PM
> To: Saint, David (David); sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: RE: More than one VM dial plan rule? (XX-7822)
>
> Dave wrote:
> > I use two Voicemail dial plan ru
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> Mossman, Paul (Paul)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:01 PM
> To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: [sipx-users] More than one VM dial plan rule?
I'm getting ready to write a proposal to replace our existing phone systems
with a sipxecs implementation.
I'm envisioning purchasing 2 T1 gateways - 1 for bringing dial tone in - the
other for linking to our old phone system (during the transition period) - then
re-using the 2nd one as we e
>
>
> Thanks Dave,
>
> I didnt see the mailto: bit in the wireshark trace, that may
> have been added by one of our browsers. Should the
> improvement be able to pick up the divert number even if
> there is no dial tag? i.e Cisco seems to format the diversion
> hear with the directory numbe
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I have managed to get a wireshark trace of the divert to
> voicemail. The key bit of the decode are:
>
> From: "6667912"
> mailto:6667...@10.203.105.50>;tag=d19c5205-82bd-44fc-88c4
> -bf5d3c52feb5-37461274
>
> Diversion: "6667912"
> mailto:6667...@10.203.105.50>;reason=unc
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for your comments, the way you describe seems to be
> the method most voicemail platforms work, but either I have
> set something up wrong or there may be a bug in the platform.
>
> So, I have the following:
>
> SipXecs - 4.2.0
> CUCM 6.1.3
>
> The CUCM has a SIP tr
>
> Hi All, I am still trying to find answers for these issues.
>
>
> Update:
>
> On point 3 - I came across a setting on CUCM which enables
> the sending of RDNIS across the SIP trunk. The impact of this
> now is when a call is diverted to the voicemail pilot number
> the voicemail system
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> Picher, Michael
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: Josh Patten; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] MWI to an external
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> Abdul Mayat
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:57 AM
> To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] MWI to an external system - is this
> -Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> Abdul Mayat
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:12 AM
> To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: [sipx-users] MWI to an external system - is this poss
17 matches
Mail list logo
