g
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:25 AM
*To:* Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
*Cc:* 'Discussion list for users of sipXecs software';
sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
*Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why?
stun01.sipphone.com is gone...
My 2 cents:
ution Paul.
>
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-
> boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of pscheep...@epo.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:25 AM
>
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> Cc: 'Discussion list for us
gt; *To:* Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> *Cc:* 'Discussion list for users of sipXecs software';
> sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why?
> stun01.sipphone.com is gone...
>
>
>
> My 2 cent
tware';
sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.com is
gone...
My 2 cents:
The better solution:
>From the same web page where the STUN servers were listed I found the
>following:
STUN may use <http:
My 2 cents:
The better solution:
From the same web page where the STUN servers were listed I found the
following:
STUN may use DNS SRV records to find STUN servers attached to a domain.
The service name is _stun._udp or _stun._tcp
And SipX users LOVE SRV records.
So if the maintainer of the s
On 3/22/11 7:41 PM, Joegen Baclor wrote:
curl -s --url http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ | grep 'myipaddress' |
egrep -o '([[:digit:]]{1,3}\.){3}[[:digit:]]{1,3}'
___
except where n it admins don't know enough about one to one natting, and
port 80 na
On 3/22/11 7:41 PM, Joegen Baclor wrote:
curl -s --urlhttp://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ | grep 'myipaddress' |
egrep -o '([[:digit:]]{1,3}\.){3}[[:digit:]]{1,3}'
___
except where n it admins don't know enough about one to one natting, and
port 80 nats
ent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:42 PM
>> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why?
> stun01.sipphone.com
>> is gone...
>>
>> On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
>>> I think this point
ipXecs software
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.com
> is gone...
>
> On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
>> I think this point was that is stun server was no longer accessible
>> because it had been discontinued so he was just gi
.
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Joegen Baclor
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:42 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01
...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:44 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.com
is gone...
I think this point was that is
rch 22, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.com
is gone...
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Matt White
wrote:
On 3/22/2011 at 04:19 PM, in me
On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> I think this point was that is stun server was no longer accessible
> because it had been discontinued so he was just giving everyone a
> friendly heads up. I would simply thank him and let it go at that.
Come on Tony! Light discussions like this
Todd,
I agree. I am not sure how stun01.sipphone.com got in there. That must
have been the "shipping" default.
Perhaps our good friends at Avaya might be willing to run one... :)
-- Robert
On 3/22/2011 4:10 PM, Todd R. Hodgen wrote:
> -1
>
> Having a default stun address to me seems important
--Original Message-
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Douglas
Hubler
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:52 PM
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were fa
--Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hubler
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] All calls were failing... why? stun01.sipphone.c
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Matt White wrote:
>
>
On 3/22/2011 at 04:19 PM, in message <4d890466.6060...@secnap.com>, Michael
> Scheidell wrote:
>> where are you specifying an stun server? what version of sipx is this?
>> I didn't think sipx (4.+) used an stun server for anything.
>>
>
>>> On 3/22/2011 at 04:19 PM, in message <4d890466.6060...@secnap.com>, Michael
Scheidell wrote:
> where are you specifying an stun server? what version of sipx is this?
> I didn't think sipx (4.+) used an stun server for anything.
>
STUN is the default for determining the public NAT address
On 3/22/11 4:14 PM, Robert B wrote:
I didn't see this anywhere else on the list, but today I rebooted my
sipX setup and could no longer place any outbound calls.
It was because the stun01.sipphone.com server is no more, and STUN is
needed for NAT traversal. Apparently Gizmo5 is closing down and
I didn't see this anywhere else on the list, but today I rebooted my
sipX setup and could no longer place any outbound calls.
It was because the stun01.sipphone.com server is no more, and STUN is
needed for NAT traversal. Apparently Gizmo5 is closing down and that
includes the STUN server.
You
20 matches
Mail list logo
