I don't think any of the responses to you have been unprofessional, that was uncalled for.
I'll encourage anyone reading this thread to ignore the poster until (if) he musters up some civility. On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Tim Ingalls <t...@sharedcom.net> wrote: > Martin, > > I'm trying to grow up. I really am. I'll try to take charge. I really will. > Thanks for the advice and the encouragement. > > Does eZuce pay you to offend potential partners? What a great job to have! > Oh, wait, you're the President and CEO of Ezuce! So you can offend anyone > you want to! That's so great for you. You don't have to care about the image > of your company or anything like that. I'm sure none of this will ever come > back to haunt you. How could it? You can just delete the whole thread, since > it makes your company look bad. Awesome. > > I don't think I got very many specific answers regarding ITSPs. But maybe > there aren't any answers to find there. If sipXecs can't successfully > connect to ITSPs, then maybe I have found my answer: just use PSTN. Or use a > product that does work well with ITSPs. > > To any whose fragile sense of security and/or superiority has been shattered > by the ideas in this very reasonable thread, my apologies, but you might > want to grow up and take charge...of your company. > > Thanks, > > Tim Ingalls > Shared Communications, Inc. > 801-618-2102 Office > > > On 02/17/2012 09:43 PM, Martin Steinmann wrote: > > Tim – as I read through this thread I think you got your answers. Grow up > and take charge. You can do it – many others have before you. If not there > is always Asterisk. > > --martin > > > > > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org > [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ingalls > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:35 PM > To: Michael Picher; sipx-users list > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility > > > > I'm hoping we can not resort to name calling, Robert. I'm just trying to > have a serious conversation so I can stop messing around with unsuccessful > configs and get out and start selling. > > Michael, I believe that you have multi-thousand-seat systems. Are you using > any ITSPs for sipXecs, or are those installations using traditional TDM > systems? If you are using ITSPs, which ones work flawlessly with the system? > Can you share screenshots of the config pages or upload a valid snapshot or > something? Are you only using TDM access as opposed to SIP trunking? > > I realize that you wrote the book, but there is more to it than that, isn't > there. The book covers the basics. There are lots of holes that a person can > fall into if they try various things that aren't documented in your book. > > Are you thinking of doing a second edition? I think that would be a great > idea, and I would buy it if it went significantly beyond what the current > one contains. But how do you handle the conflict between making money on the > book and providing free info in the sipXecs wiki? I can see how it may be > difficult to investing lots of time updating the wiki since that would take > away some of the value of buying the book. I'm not sure how I would deal > with that. > > Thanks, > > > > Tim Ingalls > > Shared Communications, Inc. > > 801-618-2102 Office > > > > > On 02/17/2012 10:12 AM, Michael Picher wrote: > > Ok... there are just some who can't get it... no worries. Properly > installed, with proper gear it works great. I have many multi-thousand seat > systems to point to. It's not everybody's cup of tea but I respectfully > disagree with you. > > On Feb 17, 2012 12:03 PM, "Robert Durst" <rdu...@smsystems.com> wrote: > > Picher, > > > > No one was discussing hosted solutions. We have deployed Asterisk switches > at each of our client locations. Simply, sipx is a mess, much like it’s > idiot supporters. > > > > > > Rob Durst > > Santa Monica Systems, Inc. > > 310.395.5135 > > www.smsystems.com > > To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target > > > > From: Michael Picher [mailto:mpic...@ezuce.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:26 AM > To: Robert Durst > Cc: t...@sharedcom.net; tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility > > > > Now that's a troll... or at least a vulture. > > > > I think the other thing some folks run into is that they try to use this as > a hosted / tenanted system.... which it isn't. nor does it pretend to be. > > > > Mike > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Robert Durst <rdu...@smsystems.com> wrote: > > Tim, > > > > We receive most of the sipx emails (now in my junk folder) as we have > previously tested sipx. After seeing this, I thought I’d respond with a few > of our own experiences. > > > > We are in a similar situation, as we are relatively new to the VOIP world. > We currently manage over 400 DIDs, so we are still very small. But there > have been a couple of discoveries that make our job much easier now. First, > after testing most of the voip apps, we settled with Asterisk (you are > already aware of the myriad of problems with sipx). Second, after employing > Sonicwall routers at all clients, we have now switched away for the voice > circuits. Most of the random problems have disappeared (no more dropped > calls leaving VMs, no more one way audio loss, etc.) We now use a $50 router > (tp-link), which works even in 100 phone deployments. And after two years > with Vitelity, we are now currently porting out all our accounts. The > underlying carrier problems, the sbc problems, the hacker attacks, etc. were > just too much to ask our clients to accept. VI has good service (so far), > few trouble tickets, and good rates (originations .001) > > > > For phones, we have used Polycom, Aastra (my favorite), Snom and > Grandstream. All work OK (Grandstream is OK now with latest firmware > update). > > > > Hope some of this is helpful. > > > > Rob Durst > > Santa Monica Systems, Inc. > > 310.395.5135 > > www.smsystems.com > > To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target > > > > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org > [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Becker, Jesse > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:14 AM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > > > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility > > > > Tim, > > No one has accused you of being a troll and several of us have provided > advise regarding LAN, firewall and PSTN setup. I would start with those > recommendations and report back with any further issues to be addressed. > > On Feb 17, 2012 6:21 AM, "Tony Graziano" <tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net> > wrote: > > A familiar refrain here is: > > Use good phones. Use good switching gear (and a vlan for voice). If > you are supporting trunking and/or remote users have a thorough > understanding of your firewall to ensure it is compatible or use a SBC > that can deliver the desired results. > > Pick and choose your ITSP carefully too. If trunking is too > porblmeatic, switch to PSTN service from the local phone company, it > still works with sipx. I think unless you are VERY well rounded in > telephony and SIP, reselling trunking will get you in over your head > real fast. > > Many of the problems you list are likely related to LAN or firewall > configurations. Some of what you are saying is strange to me (port > numbers), because unless you really need to go outside the box you > don't really have to change those things. > > Don't let anyone tell you voip is easy. Don't expect to start doing > this without a primer in telephony functions too. Read the book. > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Michael Picher <mpic...@ezuce.com> wrote: >> Tim, >> >> I think the message here from all involved is that cutting corners gives >> you >> the results you have experienced. >> >> A VoIP system will quickly point out the problems with your network. Good >> network switches, properly configured are important to larger >> installations. >> >> Cheap phones stink, my recommendation for now is to use Polycom. We're >> trying to get a few others to the table but they aren't there yet with >> their >> plugins. >> >> With tier 3 players for ITSP connections, you get tier 3 service. If you >> want top quality voice connections, get a top quality ITSP on a dedicated >> link or get traditional service and bring it in with a gateway. >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Tim Ingalls <t...@sharedcom.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Everyone. I promise I am not trying to be a troll. I have some serious >>> questions that I hope I can ask honestly and get some honest feedback >>> about >>> using the free version of sipXecs as a commercial product. >>> >>> I implemented sipXecs about a year ago. My hope was to find something >>> more >>> reliable than Asterisk/Trixbox/FreePBX and easier to deploy. My purpose >>> was >>> to start selling phone systems and SIP trunking to businesses as a VAR. >>> So >>> far, after testing the system day in and day out as my home/home-office >>> phone system, I haven't found it stable enough to feel comfortable >>> selling >>> it to customers. >>> >>> I have had a host of issues with sipXecs, and every time I think I've got >>> the platform stable, something else fails and I get one of those >>> barely-descriptive error messages in my email inbox. I've followed the >>> instructions from the book, the wiki, and this forum, but still have >>> issues >>> every month. Some of the issues are as follows: >>> >>> Routing inbound calls to an auto-attendant worked great for a long time >>> and then just stopped working one day. After connecting the call, >>> visitors >>> were greeted with no sound at all. I decided after hours of trying >>> everything to just skip the auto-attendant and deactivate it. >>> With both Vitelity and Voip.ms, I have problems where periodically an >>> authentication request is rejected. Instead of re-trying immediately, >>> sipXecs waits a full 10 minutes to try to connect again. >>> Nuances about how certain ITSPs (e.g., Vitelity and Voip.ms) work, and >>> how >>> you can and cannot connect to them without getting strange behavior like >>> inbound audio not working, rejected authentication requests, etc., take >>> days >>> and weeks to isolate sometimes. These are not very well tested nor >>> documented. I think that a serious effort at interop testing and >>> certification should be undertaken with detailed results --warts and >>> all-- >>> posted so that someone can make an educated decision when selecting an >>> ITSP >>> to use with sipXecs. >>> Just a few days ago, calls that were transfered to voicemail resulted in >>> the call failing and the ITSP routing the call to my failover phone >>> number >>> (my cell phone) -- this is after the call initially rang correctly. >>> Rebooting the system fixed it for some reason. Why? >>> Periodically, (perhaps due to a sipviscious attack) certain services just >>> stop working. Sometimes it is the proxy service. Sometimes it is the >>> registrar service. Sometimes it is the NAT traversal feature as a result >>> of >>> temporarily not being able to reach the STUN server assigned (since there >>> is >>> no back-up STUN server setting). Why should these services just fail and >>> require human intervention to restart them? Can't they just time out for >>> a >>> certain short period and then fix themselves? >>> CID doesn't work reliably. I change all of the settings as I'm told in >>> the >>> wiki, but it still doesn't get transmitted correctly (or at all). For >>> some >>> of my users, it works flawlessly, and for others it doesn't work at all. >>> Doing a SIP trace to isolate an issue is a pain in the neck. In Asterisk, >>> all you have to do is type "asterisk -rvv" and you can see a dialog >>> stream >>> which you can read quickly. With sipXecs, you have to run a series of >>> research tasks to find the call in question, convert the time to UTC, >>> grep >>> for the time stamp in a big list of calls, then create a merged XML file, >>> then load it into SIPViewer, and then find what you are looking for. The >>> process takes at least 5 minutes if you are an expert. >>> >>> Those are just a few examples. I'm always wondering what is going to go >>> wrong next. It drives me (and my wife and kids) crazy. I never had this >>> many >>> problems with Trixbox. I'm not saying that sipXecs doesn't have its good >>> points. I'm just saying that over the last year+ since I started using >>> 4.2 >>> and then 4.4, it has been anything but reliable. Reliability is the >>> number >>> one need for commercial clients. >>> >>> Yes, I'll admit that it could all be my fault. It probably is. But there >>> are so many options, so many opinions, so many sources of information, >>> (there are even so many places to set port numbers for various things) >>> that >>> it seems you have to do only sipXecs development for a living to be able >>> to >>> deploy it correctly. It is far from simple. And that complexity is part >>> of >>> the problem. >>> >>> I know that some of you have deployed many of these systems in a >>> commercial setting, so I have to ask you, how do you do it? I'm too >>> afraid >>> that if I deploy sipXecs in an actual customer's location that they'll >>> hate >>> me within a few months and ask for their money back. How do you set >>> everything up (selection of ITSP, etc.) so that the system is rock-solid >>> reliable? Can we collect some rock-solid fool-proof (as much as possible) >>> recipes that are known to work reliably every time? This seems to be >>> something that should be placed on the wiki. I know that there are 100+ >>> ways >>> to configure the system (SIP trunking gateway configs, various hardware, >>> ITSP settings, dial rules, etc.). I'm looking for just the recipes that >>> make >>> the system reliable. I also know that there are various conflicting >>> opinions >>> on this forum about what works and what doesn't. I'm looking for PROVEN >>> opinions. >>> >>> This is my final shot before I give up on the platform. I'd even be >>> willing to partner with someone who has a near-flawless system >>> implemented >>> and pay you to do the technical part if you can prove your solution is >>> stable. Until I find the answer to this problem, I can't use sipXecs as >>> the >>> cornerstone of my business plan and will have to move on. If I can solve >>> this issue, I'd be willing to pay for further development out of my >>> profits. >>> >>> I know someone will suggest that I should just sell Ezuce's commercial >>> products. Based on what I've experienced so far, I don't think I'd feel >>> confident in relying on Ezuce to be the partner in question. If the >>> open-source version has these problems, what's to say that the commercial >>> version is any better? >>> >>> Does anyone else experience the same reliability issues? >>> >>> Also, is anyone willing to have a phone conversation about this and >>> impart >>> some wisdom or have a partnership conversation? >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tim Ingalls >>> Shared Communications, Inc. >>> 801-618-2102 Office >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipx-users mailing list >>> 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Hope to see you at the sipX CoLab! http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipx-colab >> A gathering for - open source users, eZuce customers & eZuce partners >> Get the inside track on 4.6 and a glimpse at the future of sipXecs! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing list >> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > sip: tgrazi...@voice.myitdepartment.net > Fax: 434.465.6833 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Linked-In Profile: > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4 > Ask about our Internet Fax services! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > sip: helpd...@voice.myitdepartment.net > > Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net > Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hope to see you at the sipX CoLab! http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipx-colab > > A gathering for - open source users, eZuce customers & eZuce partners > > Get the inside track on 4.6 and a glimpse at the future of sipXecs! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 sip: tgrazi...@voice.myitdepartment.net Fax: 434.465.6833 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linked-In Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4 Ask about our Internet Fax services! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 sip: helpd...@voice.myitdepartment.net Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
