Sorry, just trying to understand the situation, maybe (or probably) it's
me but I'm not sure what I am not understanding.
It's small.
It's not a lot of bandwidth.
It's 4 trunks.
How many users are we talking about?
BTW: I know that trunk != extension, that's why I stated it like that.
Michael Picher <mpic...@ezuce.com> wrote on 14-09-2011 11:57:55:
> Trunk != extension...
> And remote small site connectivity here in the US isn't always cheap
> and reliable. Plus he's talking about a completely separate entity.
> On Sep 14, 2011 5:40 AM, <pscheep...@epo.org> wrote:
> > My view on the world: Simplicity for an extra 4 extensions (as in "4
> > trunks") in a remote location can be achieved without an extra SipX.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good points Todd.
> >
> > One of my favorite sayings... "simplicity breeds reliability."
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Todd Hodgen <thod...@frontier.com>
wrote:
> > Mike, You've entertained that discussion on several occasions during
the
> > past. From my perspective you are so focused on a single box solution
for
> > whatever reason, you miss the important part of it - creating a
reliable
> > platform for voice. Over the years, it's no secret that those that run
> > data networks would love to have as reliable a network as those that
run
> > voice networks. The idea is to make the voice network reliable, and
not a
> > victim to firewall software issues, or other nonsense that takes away
from
> > that.
> >
> > Surely, this beast is complex enough for you, is it not. Why make it
more
> > complex and unreliable.
> >
> > Leave the router as a router. Leave the firewall as a firewall, leave
the
> > voice server as a voice server, and leave your entire network
reliable.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> > [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
> > m...@grounded.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:36 PM
> > To: sipx-users
> > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Shared trunks between servers
> >
> > Hijack the thread, it's all useful information anyhow. However,
> > practically
> > everything mentioned is overkill :).
> > It's just a remote 4 trunk sipx setup which will use G.729 so there
won't
> > be
> > much bandwidth involved.
> >
> > Using SIP trunks is the simplest install but I'd love to test a vpn
back
> > to
> > the main office from this remote to let it get trunks from the mediant
> > directly. That only entails a low bandwidth vpn using pfsense.
> >
> > I've never set up a vpn using pfsense but it sure would have been nice
to
> > do
> > something directly off of the sipx server in order to eliminate
another
> > box
> > in the mix.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipx-users mailing list
> > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipx-users mailing list
> > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Picher
> > eZuce
> > Director of Technical Services
> > O.978-296-1005 X2015
> > M.207-956-0262
> > @mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
> > www.ezuce.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipx-users mailing list
> > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
