:44:02
To: sipx-userssipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
I've just been given the go ahead to replace one of the phone systems at
one
of our remotes sites. I'm debating whether to put a separate sipx server
The remote contains these offices (I'm not sure what some of these offices due
- some are State/Federal offices):
Public Utilities
Permits Inspections
Extension Office
NRCS GSCD
Farm Service Agency
Rural Development
Election Board
I totally agree that putting all your eggs in one T1
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Nathaniel Watkins
nwatk...@garrettcounty.org wrote:
The remote contains these offices (I’m not sure what some of these
offices due – some are State/Federal offices):
Public Utilities
Permits Inspections
Extension Office
NRCS GSCD
Farm Service Agency
...@garrettcounty.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2010 14:08
An: Tony Graziano; maybelater
Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Betreff: RE: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or
not?
The remote contains these offices (Im not sure what some of these offices
due some are State
the same purpose…
*Von:* Nathaniel Watkins [mailto:nwatk...@garrettcounty.org]
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2010 14:08
*An:* Tony Graziano; maybelater
*Cc:* sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
*Betreff:* RE: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server
or not?
The remote
Might I suggest putting a redundant proxy out at the remote location and
configuring your DNS like this:
http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/xecsuser/Location+based+DNS+views+for+sipXecs+using+BIND
so all phones at that location register to that redundant proxy.
From experience I would get a
Might I suggest a private MPLS cloud instead of the T1's with tagging for
voice... this way he can use VVX's out on the fringe and we all know how
fond of those he is.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Josh Patten jpat...@co.brazos.tx.us wrote:
Might I suggest putting a redundant proxy out at
I've never done anything like that before, but I guess it sounds like a
winner...
In any case 1 T1 isn't going to cut the mustard when running 40 phones
and that many departments. I have a site with 6 people and 7 phones and
I had to put a secondary proxy out there because the signalling
It stands for Multiprotocol Label Switching. It’s a way of speeding up
network traffic by avoiding the time it takes for a router to lookup the
address of the next node to send a packet to. In an MPLS network data has a
label attached to it, and the path that is taken is based on the label.
02451
Office 781-684-5669
-Original Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Nathaniel
Watkins
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:44 PM
To: sipx-users
Subject: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate
...@garrettcounty.org; sipx-users
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Sent: Thu Jul 01 11:20:34 2010
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate
server ornot?You will also need to look at how your ITSP handles
911/999 emergency
calls. If the 'remote' location has a separate emergency center
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 7:32 PM
To: don.mcil...@nrtnortheast.com; nwatk...@garrettcounty.org;
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones -
separate server ornot?
Its easy enough to do with a local analog gateway. Without
registering
-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones -
separate server ornot?
Its easy enough to do with a local analog gateway. Without
registering the phone can send calls to the gateway. That
should be a no brainer by now.
Tony
for
Government.
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:17 AM
To: Josh Patten
Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server
:* Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:17 AM
*To:* Josh Patten
*Cc:* sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
*Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server
or not?
Might I suggest a private MPLS cloud instead of the T1's with tagging for
voice... this way he can use VVX's out
Patten
*Cc:* sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
*Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server
or not?
Might I suggest a private MPLS cloud instead of the T1's with tagging for
voice... this way he can use VVX's out on the fringe and we all know how
fond of those he
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
It's probably simpler in his case...
He needs to look at each of the different ways to connect a remote site (and he
knows what they are already), and decide if T1 goes down what happens with
the users on that link? How
@list.sipfoundry.org
mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
*Betreff:* RE: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate
server or not?
The remote contains these offices (I'm not sure what some of these
offices due -- some are State/Federal offices):
Public Utilities
Permits Inspections
, Don [mailto:don.mcil...@nrtnortheast.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Nathaniel Watkins; sipx-users
Subject: RE: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
You will also need to look at how your ITSP handles 911/999 emergency calls. If
the 'remote' location
(streaming audio/video).
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Josh Patten
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:50 PM
To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server
-
From: McIlvin, Don [mailto:don.mcil...@nrtnortheast.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Nathaniel Watkins; sipx-users
Subject: RE: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or
not?
You will also need to look at how your ITSP handles 911/999 emergency calls
5:00 PM
To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
Ok if you're sure it will work go ahead. But be prepared to fork over for
another T1 or a different solution altogether (such as MPLS) just in case
things don't work out
I've just been given the go ahead to replace one of the phone systems at one of
our remotes sites. I'm debating whether to put a separate sipx server at this
location or run these phones off of my main sipXecs install.
We have a shared point to point T1 circuit between the two locations (20 of
@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
I've just been given the go ahead to replace one of the phone systems at one of
our remotes sites. I'm debating whether to put a separate sipx server at this
location or run these phones off of my main sipXecs
: Matthew Kitchin (Public) [mailto:mkitchin.pub...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:53 PM
To: Nathaniel Watkins; sipx-users
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate server or not?
What do you want/expect to happen (with respect to phones) if the T1 to the
main
: Re: [sipx-users] Remote Location - 45 phones - separate
server ornot?What do you want/expect to happen (with respect to
phones) if the T1 to the
main office goes down?
-Original Message-
From: Nathaniel Watkins nwatk...@garrettcounty.org
Sender: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
Date
26 matches
Mail list logo
