Your post went to the list...
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Harper <ger...@sustaa.com>
Sender: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:36
To: <m...@grounded.net>; Discussion list for users of sipXecs
software<sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
Reply-To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
<sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication
Off list (so as not to piss anyone off)... you are so right about how
people are treated on this list. One of the reasons I stopped posting
here and recommending sipx to customers. The other being the random
dropped calls issue from two years ago, I follow the list only to see if
the problem has been fixed. Neither have IMHO.
I hope it all works for you, and by the way I knew what you meant as
soon as I read it.
On 12/29/2011 8:12 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
>> Sigh what? Mike, read about PRI -
> Sigh... because you took the time to agree with Tony, giving me grief while
> at the same time pointing out that you were not doing that. Of course you
> were. Since Tony had already made his point, why did you need to bring it up
> again?
>
> You then post a separate reply to the original question when just before
> that, you told me you didn't know what I was talking about.
>
> Sigh because as soon as I point out the obvious such as I am now having to
> do, a few of you must at all costs have fun with this, turning the persons
> post into garbage making points like 'we need to understand'. Does someone
> else feel the need still?
>
> Of course you know what I was asking about, I've seen plenty of people
> talking about virtual PRI's. Who the heck would not know that a VPRI might
> simply be an abbreviation. Doesn't seem to be at the moment but give it time
> maybe :).
>
> Bottom line is that there are a few old timers on this list that seem to feel
> the need to be hard nosed to people. Why? Maybe a few of the users are simply
> too freaking serious for no good reason. Give it a rest. There is no reason
> to be like that with ANYONE on this list.
> No one makes you reply to anything, you don't have to. If you don't like how
> someone posts something, it's not your place to be the teacher or know it all
> and tell them how they need to learn everything about VoIP before ever taking
> the chance of using the wrong term while asking a question. God forbid!
>
>> That's all I'm saying, and I think that is
>> what Tony was asking - what is it exactly.
> A virtual PRI is really just a billing method for a SIP trunk. Figured pretty
> much anyone on this list would know that.
> The question really was, how do I set up sipx so that I can use IP
> authentication to the ITSP over user/password.
>
> Anyways, moving on...
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
>> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
>> m...@grounded.net
>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:08 PM
>> To: sipx-users
>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:55:11 -0800, Todd Hodgen wrote:
>>> Yes, but what is a virtual PRI? Since PRI is an ISDN standard, what is
>> the
>>> non-standard derivative that comes out of a Virtual PRI? What is it
>>> exactly?
>>>
>>> Is it maybe a PRI that is fed out of device that is actually fed via a T1
>>> with SIP trunks on it? If it is, its still a PRI, conforming to the PRI
>>> standards, as it should.
>>>
>>> I believe what you are referring to is some companies marketing name
>>> they use for a service they provide. I don't think anyone is giving
>>> you grief, we just have no idea what you are talking about since we
>>> haven't had the pleasure of reading the material you have, and really
>>> haven't a clue what this VPRI is.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
>>> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of
>>> m...@grounded.net
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:02 PM
>>> To: sipx-users
>>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:20:57 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote:
>>>> I dont know VPRI means. If you use terms noone but you might
>>>> understand you might explain it a bit. Throwing that aside...
>>>>
>>> When I don't use the right terms, I get grief and when I use the terms
>>> I'm seeing in docs, I still get grief :).
>>> I would have called it Virtual PRI but flowroute itself seems to call
>>> it VPRI for short.
>>>
>>>> flowroute is a two-edged sword: Use the bandwidth.com template and
>>>> change the bandwidth.com gateway stuff to your flowroute gateway.
>>>> make sure flowroute is swet to send to your ip address and port 5080.
>>>> Very
>>> simple.
>>>
>>> I'll take a look at this.
>>>
>>>> If you use dual wan with flowroute you may have issues if you route
>>>> netblocks or providers via specific wan ports.
>>>>
>>> Flowroute will be the only gateway these sipx servers will know and have.
>>>
>>>> flowroute does not control
>>>> the majority of their network and hence, RTP does not come from the
>>>> same IP as the gateway. You pretty much have to open everything to
>>>> use flowroute if you had been in locked down mode.
>>>>
>>> I didn't know this about them and to date, have always used an IP
>>> allow rule for them.
>>> Guess I've been lucky, haven't heard of any missed calls.
>>>
>>> These servers won't have any remote users but I wanted to have a bit
>>> of security in place so figured I would block all but
>>> sip.flowroute.com. Now I seem to have a new problem.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM, m...@grounded.net
>>>> <m...@grounded.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I need to install 4 separate sipx systems in four separate locations.
>>>>> No interoffice communications.
>>>> All of the sipx systems could benefit from the use of a VPRI rather
>>>> than traditional.
>>>>
>>>> I use ITSP's for individual lines when we need an area code that our
>>>> local telco cannot handle.
>>>> On sipx, I usually just create an ITSP device in the gateway section
>>>> and let it authenticate via user name/password.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, due to the number of lines per server (4 to 8), it
>>>> doesn't seem like a good idea to authenticate each and every DID
>>>> individually for example and would prefer using an IP based
>>>> authentication for the whole server.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'll be using flowroute for the systems but am not sure how to
>>>>> configure sipx to authenticate once based on IP over a user
>>>>> name/password. I don't see anything which would allow me to do this
>>>>> in the Gateway configuration section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone shed some light on this please.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks very much.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
