This was in the Pingtel days, hopefully things are better now. Don't get me wrong I was a big proponent of SCS/SIPX at the time and did everything I could to make things work, the dropped calls came from analog lines, PRI and SIP trunks, and we tried several ITSP's as the original did not support INVITE with no SDP, but calls would drop from every source not just SIP trunks. I hate to say it (especially here) but if I had known as much about Asterisk/Freepbx then as I do now, it would have been a solution I could make work. I plan on setting up a test box for SIPX one of these days and seeing how things are now and hope to become a contributing member of the group again...

On 12/30/2011 9:55 AM, Joegen Baclor wrote:
Does the ITSP you mentioned here support INVITE with no SDP? If it does not, that would explain the malfunctioning transfer. I am sorry to hear that it did not work out for you but there are indeed some limitations on the way the internal bridge does transfers and some level of adherence to RFC is required for it to properly function. The logs you have collected would have been precious if they were attached to a Jira. Although we may be slow in resolving issues at times, I assure you that a well written bug report will ultimately find its way on a developers plate of todo's.


On 12/31/2011 01:38 AM, Gerald Harper wrote:
Sorry for jumping into a thread when I had no business, but sometimes there are a lot of condescending attitudes on this list.

As for the issue I had:
We had installed 4 Nortel SCS systems for a customer, 3 had analog lines (Audiocodes GW) and the main system was PRI, (also Audiocodes) each was also feed with SIP trunks (SIPerator) from a local ITSP that Nortel recommended. The issue we had involved calls being dropped (or lost in space) anytime a transfer happened. We opened tickets with Nortel, who in turn would post here looking for help, (this was nearing the final days for Nortel and I guess all the good engineers had moved on) but no solution was ever found.

Eventually the customer had the systems removed and replaced with Nortel mICS, (they lost a lot of features but could at least transfer calls) sued the company I worked for who ended up loosing about $100,000 on the deal. Not to mention the hours and hours they paid me trying to collect logs and other info to give to Nortel. Shortly after that they decided that since I was in on the original decision to recommend the SCS product it would be better for me to move on as well.

This is why a jira was never opened.

On 12/30/2011 4:17 AM, Michael Picher wrote:
VPRI is just a marketing-guy term for a SIP Trunk....  That's all.

I too would love to see a Jira on that dropped call issue, I don't recall this one nor do we have any customers screaming about this.

As far as an open source mailing list, it is what it is... That's what we have pay-for support for ;-)

Thanks,
   Mike

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Todd Hodgen <thod...@frontier.com <mailto:thod...@frontier.com>> wrote:

    Mike, contrary to what you say here, I specifically am not sure
    what a VPRI
    is, and yes, after your sigh response, I Googled it and tried to
    find a
    definition of what it was exactly.

    With a telco background, PRI is very specific to me.  VPRI could
    be one of
    many things, and I really was asking what it was in the frame of
    your
    questions.  It wasn't meant to be condescending, and if it was,
    I apologize.

    VPRI has nothing to do with me, and apparently is not something
    that anyone
    knows anything about, except the company marketing with that
    name, so I will
    not respond further on this thread.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org>
    [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org>] On Behalf Of
    m...@grounded.net <mailto:m...@grounded.net>
    Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:13 PM
    To: sipx-users
    Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication

    > 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>
    > [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org>] On Behalf Of
    > m...@grounded.net <mailto: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>
    >> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org>] On Behalf Of
    >> m...@grounded.net <mailto: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
    <http://bandwidth.com> template and
    >>> change the bandwidth.com <http://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 <http://sip.flowroute.com>. Now I seem to
    have a new problem.
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM, m...@grounded.net
    <mailto:m...@grounded.net>
    >>> <m...@grounded.net <mailto: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
    <mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
    >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> sipx-users mailing list
    >> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
    >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
    > _______________________________________________
    > sipx-users mailing list
    > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
    > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
    _______________________________________________
    sipx-users mailing list
    sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
    List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

    _______________________________________________
    sipx-users mailing list
    sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
    <mailto:sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org>
    List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/




--
Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services
eZuce, Inc.

300 Brickstone Square

Suite 201

Andover, MA. 01810

O.978-296-1005 X2015
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
www.ezuce.com <http://www.ezuce.com>



_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive:http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

    sustaa Long Distance
    The Cheapest way to call Anywhere!
    Call 778-383-2374 for more information about our incredibly low
    rates!
    Canada - 0.9¢, USA - 1.9¢, India - 1.5¢ per minute!



_______________________________________________
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/

Reply via email to