Appia doesn't hard code the codecs at all (if they limited it to G.729,
AA/VM wouldnt work...its ulaw only). Rather its negotiated via the SDP.
They allow both g729 and G711u. So you can choose your codec based on what
you allow via sipxbridge and the codec order in the endpoint.
It's
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:09:22 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
They don't think Ethernet overhead. After you wrap the packet its 32k. Why
would you care what their sales monkey says?
I don't and I'm tired of his rude and know it all attitude so I've given up on
them after wasting months of my time.
Your biggest question is what to use for your internet connection. If they
will have 24 simultaneous calls your looking at about 2048 KB if using
G.711U (86KB with payload plus overhead). Which means you will need to
move to G.729 to fit your max call bandwidth inside a T1.
Appia told me
Sure enough, adding the aliases to the new server allowed me to point the old
server dns records to the new server.
We recreated all of the users on the new server and once everything was in
place, fired up the new dns info and let it out.
As soon as each user session timed out, so long as their
to the IP of the
new server sipxB.com for example.
Mike
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:28:17 -0400, Michael Picher wrote:
And, now, what setting is it specifically that is programmed in the
router
you are worried
the changes, it'll be days before things settle if I this wasn't going to
work.
That's what I'll do next then. Thank you for your input.
Mike
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:45 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:26:46 -0400, Michael Picher wrote:
But you haven't given
]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:53 AM
To: m...@grounded.net; Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] DNS SRV one domain to another for remotes
yes, just set a domain alias on the new cluster with the old domain...
then swing the external dns A records
change the dns
info, then shut down the old server so that those users automatically get moved
to the new server.
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:02:31 -0400, Michael Picher wrote:
What are these routers you speak of?
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote
Is that what you mean, what the remotes are using?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:02:31 -0400, Michael Picher wrote:
What are these routers you speak of?
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
Their routers are all statically set with the old domain name
to change, only the domain name is.
I am trying to propagate the last of the users from an old system I need to
shut down and onto a new system. The replacement system has a different domain
name however.
On Jun 24, 2012 11:04 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
They are all
Well, wasn't really sure how to word that in the subject but here's the issue.
I have some remotes that need to be migrated over to a new sipx server. I can't
get at their routers to change the old domain name and the new sipx box is on a
new domain name.
I was wondering if I could simply
at this.
Anyone know for sure if that would work? I would point the old domain dns/srv
records to the new sipx server's IP.
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-
boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of m...@grounded.net
Sent: Saturday, June 23
, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:52:35 -0700, m...@mattkeys.net wrote:
The domain alias setting comes to mind. Maybe worth a shot? In
sipXsupervisor - System - Domain - and down at the bottom Add Alias.
Sounds like that could work
So other than virtual hosting, not much input on other physical hosters.
I don't trust appia at this point, I'd like to find something else. Too many
problems throwing up red flags.
I'd love to know of some other providers who are good at hosting servers such
as this.
Mike
drives later
or, be able to upgrade from sipx 4.4 to 4.6 from remote.
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:10 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
I was... afraid of that... but appreciate the reply. Thanks very much.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:03:44 -0400, Tony Graziano
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:25:57 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
No, you cannot run 4.4 on Centos 6.x.
Thank you.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:56:33 -0400, Michael Picher wrote:
Just to clarify..
sipXecs / openUC 4.4
What's the best version of Centos to use for installing sipx onto later?
I have a machine that simply won't allow 6.2 to install but thought I read that
sipx isn't at 6.x anyhow.
Mike
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List
, it will be packaged for the latest centos 6.x (6.2 right now), so
going forward beyond sipx 4.4, centos 6.2 will likely be the minimum for
you.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
What's the best version of Centos to use for installing sipx onto later?
I have
but nothing to click on to see demo. I'll look
again later.
Thanks for the info, I'll file this for later.
Mike
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:22:12 -0400, Douglas Hubler wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
Why would it not be possible to build into sipx
Why would it not be possible to build into sipx, a method by which users could
backup and restore onto newer versions.
Several times over the course of using sipx and having to upgrade, it has been
a rather painful process to go from one server to another. One of the problems
is the ssl
is CentOS and
not sipx. I am not sure this is an appropriate forum for discussing why
can't I yum from 5.x to 6.x CentOS, since this is not a CentOS forum.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
Why would it not be possible to build into sipx, a method by which
other words: the earlier you get started testing and provide feedback,
the earlier you can influence that date.
Not a problem.
I recall asking about this before and being told it's not a good idea to build
a dev server then keep upgrading it and better to wait for the full version if
you need
I noticed someone asking when the new release would be out and I seem to recall
the answer being 'soon'.
Is soon, a few days, a week, more?
Hoping for some idea since I have to send a server out and it might as well
have the newest version if I can.
Thanks.
-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-
boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of m...@grounded.net
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:25 PM
To: sipx-users
Subject: [sipx-users] New Release?
I noticed someone asking when the new release would be out and I seem to
recall the answer being
that that are known to work well
with sipx.
Thanks for the details, very interesting.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:18:51 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
Would you be able to share what this is costing? I was thinking of firing
off a server to appia.
It's about $100/Month I believe.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:55
low to be bare metal
so there are scalability issues with virtual stuff in general (media)
depending on the platform used.
On May 23, 2012 11:17 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
I haven't looked anywhere other than appia so far because I wasn't
thinking of having to do
I need to host a sipx server and was wondering if there might be some
suggestions on the list about doing that.
It would be a fairly low volume server.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive:
22, 2012 at 10:22 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
I need to host a sipx server and was wondering if there might be some
suggestions on the list about doing that.
It would be a fairly low volume server.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx
at least, for proxy, registrar and
bridge then re-run the sipx-trace.
Let's see how that goes now.
-
MM
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on what else I might look for? Is there
something else I should post that would help
Are your logs set at info or above for the proxy and bridge? If not they
need to be.
I found several threads and posts on how to run the test but none mentioned
changing the logs level :).
No problem, I'll do that and re-run the test.
For instance, the call originates as 192.168.1.241
wrong with my setup since everything else works?
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:49:41 -0400, Matt White wrote:
m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net 05/11/12 9:16 AM
Are your logs set at info or above for the proxy and bridge? If not they
need to be.
I found several threads and posts on how to run
Your sipx-trace shows 192.168.1.241 sending the Invite to the SIP-Proxy.
What is 192.168.1.241? This is not appia and its not your PBX.
That is the private IP of the sipx server.
This typically means you have a SIP "gateway" handling your calls. Not a
gateway setup in sipx. But an actual
Do you have any thoughts on what else I might look for? Is there something else
I should post that would help?
I just don't see anything obvious and maybe I've been looking at it too long
now.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
On Wed, 9 May 2012 17:50:29 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
Have not had the chance to do a trace but I did get their pcap.
Ok, so I don't often have to run traces so I've forgotten how to.
Searching, I've come up with lots of examples but am not sure which one is best
for this purpose.
Can
As an FYI, a sipx-trace is the starting point with all failed calls/trunk
issues. So spend time learning to read them.
Thanks. I'll do just that right now.
Mike
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive:
I've got a trace and am looking at it in sip viewer. The two things that seem
to be important are as follows.
The call answered elsewhere is strange. I don't see any mention of a codec
problem so far.
Mike
Time: 2012-05-10T17:11:46.402637Z
Frame: 40 sipXproxy.xml:3411 sipXproxy.xml:3412
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:30:10 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
Why does the call come in with only 13 forwards? It's running out. See
frame 11. It should have 60'ish (69) as a default. Either way 13 is
way to low.
Yes, I see that in the trace; Max-Forwards: 13
I don't see this as a setting in the
.
Sipx uses a sip friendly value of around 69 i think, which is the RFC
recommendation (as I recall).
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:30:10 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
Why does the call come in with only 13 forwards? It's running
When I ran the trace, I started it just before we made the call and ended it as
soon as the call failed. Should I wait a little longer as well?
On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:15:00 -0400, Matt White wrote:
m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net 05/10/12 1:59 PM
Yes, I see that in the trace; Max
to cost
me an additional grand for no good reason because I haven't been able to port
DID's I had intended to port to them by now.
Total and complete nonsense.
Mike
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:45:43 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
Is anyone else using appia on port 5080 with IP auth?
We signed up
though or if it even should be necessary.
I removed the template we were using and re-created the gateway using none.
That option is not checked at the moment.
I'll test using it enabled and not.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
At this point
without
using a template at all. This is a verizon issue of sorts that was
discussed a long time ago on here. I don't know that it will help
though or if it even should be necessary.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
At this point, it is completely
Finally, some input from appia!
Investigating with higher up techs
//
Verdal found that it appears the customers PBX is not accepting the calls
as g729 and they are sending back a 488 Not Acceptable attaching pcap
Informed Mike he is going to investigate his end and let us know what he
finds
\\
I thought I would start a new thread because this no longer has anything to do
with ports and is an interesting problem.
I have been having a problem with appia. We have one of their DID's installed,
can make outgoing calls but incoming calls aren't working.
I have a gateway set up for the
Have not had the chance to do a trace but I did get their pcap.
Mike
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:21:58 -0400, Matt White wrote:
Perform a sipx-trace and it will show you what is responding 488.
Sipxbridge can limit the codecs or the phone can limit the codec.
-M
m...@grounded.net m
to contact them regularly to
get someone working on it otherwise we seem to wait endlessly.
Mike
On Wed, 2 May 2012 12:25:14 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Gerald Drouillard
gerryl...@drouillard.ca wrote:
On 4/26/2012 6:45 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
Is anyone else
[mailto:sipx-users-
boun...@list.sipfoundry.org]
On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:12 PM
To: m...@grounded.net; Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] UPDATE Re: Anyone using appia IP auth, port 5080
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM,
m
the decline message
in your sip trace if you are looking at that or proxy logs, but that type
is typical for some itsp's and only noteworthy IF you can't send calls.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:43 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:13:06 -0400, Nathaniel Watkins
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:23:03 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
I mean the fact that one reseller is not supposed to be interfering with
another account, appi's rules.
Guess they broke their own rule by talking about another customer :).
call does not work? If outbound, make sure you are sending
guidance has been given that is needed. Appi can LOOK AT MY account and
make sure it matches his with the exception of credentials/#''s. They don't
need me for that.
Apparently they do considering the VP calling me to tell me otherwise :).
Now, on that note, I do point out that my registered
sending on port 5080 using registration.
Yup, they just don't send anything on port 5080.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:23:03 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
I mean the fact that one reseller is not supposed to be interfering
...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
This is what they are seeing.
908.051645 x.x.107.76 - 69.54.92.156 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:69.54.92.156
908.054989 69.54.92.156 - x.x.x.76 SIP Status: 401 Unauthorized (0
bindings)
908.108053 x.x.107.76 - 69.54.92.156 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:69.54.92.156
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:27:46 -0400, Matt White wrote:
We bundle the appliance with all sip trunks, but the free business edition
works great too. And you can setup a 5060 to 5080 port forward for appia
with about 3 mouse clicks. Very easy to use and learn.
Always nice to find out about a
So, got a conference call from sales and the vise president of Appia this
morning, wanting to make sure I had proper information.
He explained that he wanted to make sure that if there is any confusion, that I
get first hand information concerning any possible hardware being offered on
port
He explained that Tony has provided all of the information about his use of
Sorry, this line is 'has not'
Mike
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
I beg to differ. The only thing that has been a bust was the fact their
sales channel guy could never keep appointments with me, etc. BOTH worked,
and I relayed this to them, but they have a horrible
helpdesk/communications platform AND they insist on wasting my time to
schedule
and I relayed this to them, but they have a horrible
helpdesk/communications platform
BTW, this is very true. However, they continuously tell me that they are
working on a GUI and a portal for their new SBC which allows instant
provisioning of everything, coming to a screen near you... who
So quick question in terms of using appia and registration.
ITSP Identifier Registration Status
sip.appiaservices.com [314925] AUTHENTICATION_FAILED
I've created the gateway, added the reg information but cannot authenticate.
Have emailed
It's probably not sipx related since I can't even register a phone using the
credentials they sent me.
Waiting to hear from support.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:17:25 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
So quick question in terms of using appia and registration.
ITSP Identifier
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:43:00 -0400, Matt White wrote:
Under the gateway config, you do NOT want the port to be listed as 5080.
You want it to be either 0 or 5060. If it is set to 0 then sipx with do an
SRV lookup to find the port. Appia does support SRV looks for the
registration (its the
It is normal to have issues on the first attempt with them. Here are my
notes for appia install:
Sipx setting Registration Interval: 180 (not 600 - not sure about this one
though)
Usually first password doesnt work. Tell them to Reload trunk group.
First password never works?
That's
authentication.
Mike
Appia will never listen on port 5080. They just need to send to 5080.
Sipx will send to their port 5060.
-M
m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net 04/27/12 1:19 PM
So quick question in terms of using appia and registration.
ITSP Identifier
Even with the port set to 5060 on the Appia gateway, this is what I am seeing
in the pfsense log.
udpIn 192.168.1.241:508069.54.92.84:5060 0:1 00:00:0627
4 2360
udpOut 192.168.1.241:508069.54.92.84:5060 1:0 00:00:0627
4 2360
Appia
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:56:00 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
This is the correct behavior for sipxbridge.
So, if appia is expecting port 5060 but I can't seem to force that on a
specific gateway, what am I missing to get this to work?
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, m...@grounded.net m
So, if appia is expecting port 5060 but I can't seem to force that on a
specific gateway, what am I missing to get this to work?
I forgot to mention that the system does use voip.ms and flowroute so I can't
change the overall system settings, only those for the appia gateway.
gateway, re-created it using the
voip.ms template. No difference.
In fact, sipx is no longer even trying to connect to appia. I can't seem to
force it either.
I'm using sipx 4.4.0.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
So, if appia is expecting port
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:13:01 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
If it is not making the attempt it probably can't resolve somethings name.
I switched it to IP since appia is asking me to test a different server. No go
on either.
On Apr 27, 2012 6:03 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote
no
difference.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:13:01 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
If it is not making the attempt it probably can't resolve somethings name.
On Apr 27, 2012 6:03 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:33:38 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
argh. Just set up a trunk
:13 PM, Tony Graziano tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net
wrote:
If it is not making the attempt it probably can't resolve somethings name.
On Apr 27, 2012 6:03 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:33:38 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
argh. Just set up a trunk using
This is what they are seeing.
908.051645 x.x.107.76 - 69.54.92.156 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:69.54.92.156
908.054989 69.54.92.156 - x.x.x.76 SIP Status: 401 Unauthorized (0 bindings)
908.108053 x.x.107.76 - 69.54.92.156 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:69.54.92.156
908.110995 69.54.92.156 - x.x.x.76 SIP
They flipped some magic switch and poof, it all came up. Finally.
Thanks very much for the input.
Mike
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:28:23 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
This is what they are seeing.
908.051645 x.x.107.76 - 69.54.92.156 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:69.54.92.156
908.054989
Anyone know of a document showing how to configure pfsense (2.0) to forward
port 5060 to port 5080 for ITSP use on sipx.
I can't seem to get this to work and am not sure why. Since port 5060 is used
by remotes and I need to catch ITSP traffic, I created a separate rule for a
second port 5060
,
they are telling me it's still in development with no time frame available yet.
Mike
On Apr 26, 2012 5:00 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
Anyone know of a document showing how to configure pfsense (2.0) to
forward port 5060 to port 5080 for ITSP use on sipx.
I can't seem to get
Whatever you say. If they won't help you your reseller should be able to
work it out.
I'm not making this up. They have been telling me since I first contacted them
that they do not provide port 5080. I've been pushing and pushing them to fix
that problem. It took me a month of emailing to
...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
Whatever you say. If they won't help you your reseller should be able to
work it out.
I'm not making this up. They have been telling me since I first contacted
them that they do not provide port 5080. I've been pushing and pushing them
to fix that problem. It took
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:02:39 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote:
Both work.
I'll post another message and ask if others are using them on port 5080. That
makes no sense.
On Apr 26, 2012 5:55 PM, Gerald Drouillard gerryl...@drouillard.ca
wrote:
On 4/26/2012 5:01 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote
Is anyone else using appia on port 5080 with IP auth?
We signed up with them a few weeks ago but have been talking with them for a
couple of months. For that amount of time, they have been telling us they do
not provide port 5080 services and are only in a testing phase at this time.
I have
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:45:43 -0500, m...@grounded.net wrote:
Is anyone else using appia on port 5080 with IP auth?
I am basically ending up in the middle where a long time user of the list says
he is receiving services on port 5080 and the company providing the services
keeps telling me
Ok, so, back to this question.
Figured I'd ask about this here since there should be plenty of sipx/pfsense
users. I'll continue searching as well but appreciate any feedback if you are
doing this.
Thanks.
___
sipx-users mailing list
If you use the registration method with Appia then you will get the
calls on 5080. At least that is how we have one account setup. Not
sure if they allow 5080 on IP auth.
Hi, thanks. Yes, I can use registration for certain things but I'm installing
an 8 port sip to analog converter next
Also, keep in mind if you are looking at this for bigger installations a
SBC is recommended for terminating the trunk to. This of course does not
have port 5080 restrictions either.
Thanks for the input Mike. I'll set up registration for sipx at least and give
that a try.
In the other case,
...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
m...@grounded.net
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:46 PM
To: sipx-users
Subject: [sipx-users] Anyone using appia IP auth, port 5080
Is anyone else using appia on port 5080 with IP auth?
We signed up with them
it all the time with them.
On Apr 26, 2012 5:00 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
Anyone know of a document showing how to configure pfsense (2.0) to
forward port 5060 to port 5080 for ITSP use on sipx.
I can't seem to get this to work and am not sure why. Since port 5060 is
used
into this and if they don't have it, get it
done asap.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
m...@grounded.net
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:28 PM
To: sipx-users
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] pfsense
:).
Anyhow, I don't care, I'm using hylafax, it would simply be nicer to have it
all in one.
Mike
Mike
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
So is there an existing place to vote for this?
Does anyone else want to see this in sipx?
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09
I think you might be the only one bent on Outbound fax from the
desktop with Hylafax. Hard to justify integrating with a project that
hasn't had a update in 19 months. Since sipx is using the FS media
Nah, not bent on it, I just like seeing all in one solutions when ever
possible. With
Just wanted to point out that hylafax does have email to fax gateways,
linux command line sending, and print drivers for outbound. Although it
does seem like a lot of extra baggage to have to install hylafax, it
does provide a solution for high outbound fax sites.
Yup, it's pretty cool,
Which ATA do you use? and can it be used remotely?
We're still getting away with a non T.38 ATA, the LinkSys RT31P2-NA so far has
worked in all situations.
It's registered on sipx and faxes go out via PRI.
There are T.38 enabled ATA's out there though which is what we're slowly moving
to.
Well, this is called t.37, and sipx does not need hylafax in order to
implement t.37, as said before.
Not sure who you're saying this to since I'm already using this, as I've also
mentioned before :)
___
sipx-users mailing list
So is there an existing place to vote for this?
Does anyone else want to see this in sipx?
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:07:03 -0400, Gerald Drouillard wrote:
On 4/13/2012 8:20 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
I believe I saw a thread a while back where someone was asking about
sending faxes. Some
Pointedly they dont have a way to use t38modem in a way that works.
Never have thats why noone uses hylafax in t38 deployments. You still
have to use hardware between hylafax and your t.38 switch. So if you
put up a separate hylafax box us an ATA and be done with it. It cant
really integrate.
I believe I saw a thread a while back where someone was asking about sending
faxes. Some searching shows that some have asked but that there are no plans.
Is this still the case or are others interested in this? Even a shared outgoing
account as a 'group' would be so very welcome and would
Tony, have you got something messed up?
We would like to acknowledge that we have received your request and a
ticket has been created with Ticket ID - 577.
A support representative will be reviewing your request and will send you a
personal response.(usually within 24 hours).
To view the
I've delved into Hylafax and others and don't see they are scalable or
flexible nor are they active communities to draw support from.
Maintaining Hylafax/Avantfax server is a total headache. The smallest things
can start problems escalating into huge ones fast.
Sipx has all the framework to
:04 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:58:51 -0500, Matt White wrote:
Configure your firewall to port forward 5060 to 5080 for their IP block.
Simple and effective for all features.
I prefer not to get into that sort of thing if possible but yes
is the fastest call
setup times I've seen so far, at least using the mediatrix so I'm happy with
that.
As for GUI, they have told me on more than one occasion now that they are
working hard on it and it's coming.
Thanks for the input.
Mike
-m
m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net 02/14/12 5:03 PM
, 2012 at 10:04 AM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:58:51 -0500, Matt White wrote:
Configure your firewall to port forward 5060 to 5080 for their IP block.
Simple and effective for all features.
I prefer not to get into that sort of thing if possible but yes
Kinda confused here
This was the reply I got today asking for an update since this seems to be
going on and on. This is what I got.
I guess they don't know what people are using with their services but they did
know sipx. I thought someone said they were receiving services on port 5080
Sounds like you are trying to do IP auth? Have your sipx gateway
register with their server if they cannot send calls to 5080.
That is how we have it configured.
Correct, I need IP auth. That would work ok in some cases but IP auth would be
better.
However, my main concern initially was
have had no issue having them send to me on port 5080 using either method.
I also can use their t.38 trunks to receive faxes in sipx or send from an
fxs port using t.38.
On Feb 11, 2012 4:16 PM, m...@grounded.net m...@grounded.net wrote:
The quality on the device which now works is great
1 - 100 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
