Re: [Asterisk-Users] Weird Over Lapping Asterisk Calls via SIP Phones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to create an IVR system that uses both POTS and IP phones and I have a few problems that I encountered with the IP SIP phones (Grandstream Budge Tone 102). 1. When a user hits the hook fast enough, the user can create multiple IVR connections that gives the appearance of an echo that is phased a few seconds apart. The way to reproduce this is by hitting the hook fast and furious. The telltale sign of multiple connections is when you get an echo from the IVR and or static caused by the multiple prompting. What could be causing this and how do I solve this. Here is the SIP config. 2. Poor audio quality over VPN broadband and direct Full T1. The audio recordings (in uncompress WAV format) that comes out at the IVR end is either muddled, static, or contains gaps. This occurs on both broadband and T1. What can be done to improve the audio recordings so they are audible. What sort of VPN? There are potential issues under certain circumstances with latency involved in the connection. These can be fixed however. I larger issue is likely to be QOS in general. 3. How do I set up QOS on a broadband VPN when I do not control the bandwidth of the Internet? You can definitely have issues with general internet traffic if you set up VPN on your router. However, these are far less serious than if you don't. You want to set up QOS on whatever network interface is closest to the internet and can control all of the traffic between your network and the internet. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] civil emergency comms: Asterisk + HAM
Michael D Schelin wrote: The two best forms of communications in a real disaster and one always has been is #1 Ham radio. and #2 satellite telephone. Ham radio is global and has proven time and time again to be the most reliable when the infrastructer has been damaged. The U.S government is the biggest user of satellite telephones which is also becoming a valuable tool again when the communications infrastructure is down. It would be nice If Asterisk could be used but in this case but it's useless. People are displaced and most of the communications infrastructure for the city is unusable. I don't mean all of the telco's systems. It's the flood that wiped out most home and business systems. For us, The best thing that a provider can do is to have redundant servers in different cities. This should remind us all how fragile our lives are. While I agree with your points, I think I was thinking along different lines. Your points are useful particularly for mobile units. This is important because you have to have some form of mobile communications when you are doing disaster relief. I am not saying that my suggestion would relieve the need for Ham radio and Satellite telephone. But rather that this would allow you to do relatively quick infrastructure building to fixed locations thus freeing up Ham operators to do what they need to do-- offer mobile communications. The idea here would be that shelters, etc. could then use various line-of-site wireleass connections to set up Asterisk and that these would not have to be moved frequently. Yes, it takes more electricity, but remember what I said about strategic reserves of fuel for generators? I was largely reacting to Mark Phillips' point about Ham radios being in short supply in any sort of disaster. The point is not to replace ham radio but rather to maximize the potential of what can be done with the existing number of operators. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] civil emergency comms: Asterisk + HAM
Mark Phillips wrote: Hold on here folks, I'm guessing that the original poster of this thread isn't a member of his local RAyNet team. Whilst I don't profess to be an expert at this I have been doing emergency radio for quite some time and have seen service at the Lockerbie bombing, Docklands bomb, Ground Zero (I'm sure I'm a terrorist target y'know - they seem to follow me everywhere) and soon I'll be in Louisiana. In all of these events the KISS principle must and does prevail. We need a system that is a simple and energy efficient as possible. Building a network of * servers and Wi-Fi links is all very well but how are you going to power them? These are excellent points. I have a few interesting suggestions here The first is that the only obstacle to any sort of longer-range point to point line is merely power. This is true whether you are talking HAM or fiberoptics. Note that if you have the power, it would take disruption of the physical line to disrupt a fiber line. Note that DirectNIC in New Orleans remained operational without *any* downtime or loss of connectivity with the rest of the world. The suggestion that I have is for various areas to have dedicated civil emergency com units with strategic reserves of fuel (3-4 weeks worth), battery backups, etc. These units would have links (fiber, microwave, and/or satellite, better to pick 2 of 3) to areas outside expected disaster zones. Asterisk could then run across these links. (Sattelite links would best be POTS-type). The point is to a disaster-tolerant communications infrastructure which could then be used to to provide additional communications services to the relief workers. With various point to point wireless capabilities, it might be possible to use them to provide cell service to relief workers etc through the installation of GSM microcells (which could be brought in after the fact). See where I am going? Generators require fuel which is always in short supply and batteries die out quickly. Adding Ham Radio to the picture doesn't really add much when you are trying to do something like a * network. The radio gear just isn't designed to integrate with the * server. Ham radio is being used down in the Katrina affected area with great results for both emergency and heath/welfare related traffic. They are using both phone (that's when one talks in to the radio) and data modes and can be heard all over the 75 and 40 meter bands here in the US. Power for most of these stations comes from batteries they loot (with Police approval) from abandoned cars or a combo of solar and batteries. Many stations are only hear on the air after dark so that they can put as much sunlight into their batteries as possible. Yes, electricity is available in some places either all day or across the peak hours (allowing the workmen to restore power to other areas). Yes, there are radio to phone interconnects but these really are a single phone to a single radio. Think of it as a cordless phone in that the radio user can be anywhere within reach of the base station. Such technologies, whilst legal here in the US, may not be legal elsewhere. When last at home (UK) I was not able to connect my radio to the phone system by law (this may have changed recently - not been home for 8 years). Many countries have such restrictions and as we saw during the Tsunami, rules don't get relaxed just because there's a panic on. Without question a phone system would be much better than a radio station. As such I'll be taking a portable * server I've built, all the IP hard phones I can find and 5 DirectTV style Internet systems. How do IP hardphones work with satellite internet? I always thought people had real trouble getting them to work at all. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Tecnology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Firewall will definately increasejitters inyourvoice conversation
Tim Connolly wrote: On that note... IPSec tunnels seem to reek havoc on the echo canceling/training process. Anytime our Cisco PIX loads up, the echo complaints start coming in. Stay away from the IPSec tunnels. Any idea why that would happen? Obviously on a 4-wire end-to-end system echo cancellation is not an issue. But since your PIX is not part of the 2-4 wire conversion why would it impact your echo cancellation unless the inaudible added latency is throwing off the training algorythms? Also echo cancellation, if I understand correctly, should affect only systems where there is a 2-4 wire conversion (i.e. analog to digital). If there is no such conversion, then this should not be a concern. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Firewall will definately increase jitters in your voice conversation
Lokesh kumar wrote: Hi, If you will put firewall, then i think you will get high latency and consequently you will hear voice jitter in your conversation. so avoid putting firewall. Is this a troll or what? Anyway, there is a valid point here so I will address it as if it were not. The issue is that your perimiter control mechanisms can affect latency in any number of ways. Those of us who know what we are doing use them to *reduce* latency and *increase* sound quality by using various QoS traffic shaping technologies on the firewall. Similarly if you have a severely underpowered firewall and your firewall rules are overly complex then you very well could have sound quality degradation. However, it is a matter of firewall design and not really a matter of the class of technologies as a whole. Without a firewall w/QoS set up properly, I should be able to cause voice jitters by downloading, say, 10 Linux distro ISO's from various different locations... :-) The QoS system prevents this from causing problems :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Firewall will definately increase jitters inyourvoice conversation
Rich Adamson wrote: That's a crack of crap sold by the marketing (not sales) people selling firewalls. If you know what you're doing, one can very easily secure any linux system to function on the Internet (etc) without a firewall. It all depends on your level of knowledge/skills on how to disable those items that are not really needed in your environment. Start with a 'netstat -a' to identify those ports that are listening, and shut those items down that you don't want exposed. You can do the same for any MS system as well. But you still want a firewall here especially if you have several VOIP systems which could be making independent connections to the internet. The firewall in this case will hopefully not only do things like VPN for securing your data in trasit between your office and a remote one, but it will also provide a platform for QoS/traffic shaping. To avoid the firewall here is actually *asking* for sound quality problems in addition to the fact that you no longer have the entrence point to your network secured. Now to your point Almost any Linux system can be configured (if you know what you are doing) to perform all these firewalling functions. Just add an extra network card, put it on the perimeter of your network, set up iptables, traffic shaping, uninstall unnecessary software, use Netstat to doublecheck listening ports, etc. and you have your firewall. A firewall doesn't have to be expensive but some form of perimiter control is very helpful in these cases. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Firewall will definately increase jittersinyourvoice conversation
Wiley Siler wrote: The question was not can I secure a Linux box without a hardware firewall. The question (or statement really) was will a firewall add jitter and lower performance. A good firewall architecture w/QoS will actually prevent jitter and increase performance, I might add. That answer is obviously a big NO. Can you secure a Linux (or even Windows) machine by closing ports? Sure. It helps immensely. However, an advantage of hardware is that you are physically separating the traffic from the end point. The analogy I would use here is that you could purchase a safe for each person in your house and have them each keep all their valuables in it, but it is often cheaper and easier to focus on securing entrence-points. The same is doubly true for office buildings, and also quite true for computer networks. I typically use used P1's running Linux for firewalls. They work great and have all the capabilities I need including QoS and secure management. Sure, all the ports closed on a Linux box can protect that machine. However, having only web (for example) traffic going to your Apache server is really beneficial. The server can focus on delivering pages and not spend any CPU cycles on is this a good packet? Should I drop it?. A firewall (software or hardware) should also be able to better deal with DOS and things of that nature. Port securing does nothing to assist with DOS. DOS doesn't include a TCP/IP stack does it? ;-) By Things of that nature are you including CP/M? Actually port securing can provide some measure of protection against DoS attacks in that fewer services are available to attack. However, you are correct that this protection is probably insignificant. So... You are totally right, you can secure a box that way. However, a firewall (be it software or hardware) is far superior a method. When you say software or hardware I assume you mean hardware like PIX and software like BlackIce. I am not sure where a stripped down Linux version running on a P1 which does firewalling and only firewalling fits in. I call that type of system a hardware firewall simply because it is a dedicated piece of hardware which does perimiter control and only perimiter control. Where VOIP is concerned, use a dedicated firewall system with QoS capabilities. Period. (Yes it is possible to run such a system on Windows, but I certainly don't advise it.) I prefer the hardware method myself as it is a matter of management and additional features. However, for some, a software method may be better. I ran Mandrake SNF (a shorewall implementation) for a long time so I have been there. Considering you can run a Linux firewall on a 386 machine worth $20 makes the fact that so many people don't have firewalls seem just ridiculous. Bear in mind that finding replacement parts (NIC's etc) for your 386 may not be trivial. That is why I use P1's with PCI slots... Also it is often impossible to get OpenGK to compile on such a machine due to memory limitations (my P1 firewall even has this problem and it has a whopping 32MB RAM). So the older you go, the less functionality you may be able to add. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] hidecallerid on analog line
chawki hammoud wrote: In the ISDN case, setcallerid or hidecallerid can be configured and I am aware that Asterisk doesn't support that on analog line. My question is whethere there is something like add-on script or hardware that will do the job. The teleco company provide the callerid service, but no private number service. If I understand the signalling architecture correctly, if your telco does not provide the service, you are out of luck. A quick explenation: ISDN (PRI for the purpose of this example) uses out of band signalling to provide what is essentially a trunk line plus a signalling channel to your PBX. Basically one of the DS0 channels on the T1 is used for signalling and called the D channel (while your voice DS0's are called B channels). Analog lines are completely different. In general, very little if any signalling is expected to be carried over an analog line. Therefore, the advanced signalling capabilities that ISDN offer are unavailable on analog simply because the telco architecture doesn't support it. Basically, in this case, *all* caller-id data originates from the telco's switch. The only way to suppress this information is to tell the switch to suppress it. Unless they offer such a service (prefixing the number with something, for example, to activate it), you have no access to the system. In this case there is nothing you can add to make this work. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting --- Robert Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT) chawki hammoud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a way to hide the callerid on analog line on outgoing calls. Any ideas whether it could be done through configuration, a script or hardware. Thanks; It would have to be done through who ever provides your POTS service. They provide the caller ID to who you are calling. Some have the option to block it. Asterisk cannot be configured to do this. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: E911 Legislation (was) Re: [Asterisk-Users] VoiPSupply Dot Com
I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but... Personally, I think that it is completely reasonable for people offering VOIP to PSTN termination services to pay for E911 when they offer such termination services to customers as primary telephone lines. I know taxes are unpopular with some people, but our emergency response infrastructure needs to be supported somehow. Now, you might have a point if you pointed out that you may have too many tax juristictions involved to make it work. But this is a matter of implimentation, not a matter of the concept. Maybe we need some reform in how this is handled to accomodate VOIP but saying that those who provide gateway services to the PSTN are not responsible for helping support our emergency services on the PSTN is simply crazy. We are not talking about "VOIP" here per se, but rather the connectivity to and from the PSTN. Secondly, I assume that you want fair competition. In that case, you can either get rid of E911 service entirely or force non-traditional telecoms to comply. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting - Original Message - From: Karl J. Vesterling To: Matt ; Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 4:07 AM Subject: E911 Legislation (was) Re: [Asterisk-Users] VoiPSupply Dot Com E911 legislation has no business being applied to VOIP... That gets the FCC involved, and is a foot in the door to legislating the internet itself.Nope... I'll have none of that... Get a junk cell phone and keep it handy if you want E911 service. It doesn't even have to be active on anyones network. Any cell phone, whether active or inactive is able to place an E911 call.At 08:02 AM 6/2/2005, you wrote: Yes.. you should have spent 16 hours browsing the small print andTerms of Service (if it took you that long). Good Grief man! Youmust be one of those people sueing Vonage because their 9-1-1 setupprocedure isn't clear! [snip]Best Regards, Karl J. VesterlingE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone:Washington DC: (202) 448-3009 Extension 0Annapolis MD: (240) 524-6706 Extension 0Bethesda MD: (301) 576-3014 Extension 0Niagara Falls NY: (716) 286-9175 Extension 0Buffalo NY: (716) 608-1121 Extension 0 Yahoo Messenger: karl_vesterlingICQ: 1548052AOL Instant Messenger: n2vqm ___Asterisk-Users mailing listAsterisk-Users@lists.digium.comhttp://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-usersTo UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] .call files in outgoing dont get run
First, check your permissions. That seems to be the most common issue there. Make sure that the asterisk user has full read and right permissions to the directory and the file. Second check your logs. After you do this, something like: grep -i warning /var/log/asterisk/full | tail -n 10 may give you something useful to go on. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Best DB
complex reporting for multiple apps, you might want to simplify things using views. However, I don't know exactly what you were doing so I don't know how possible this would have been on another database management system. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Best DB
David Brodbeck wrote: This Postgres vs. MySQL business is ultimately just a religious debate, like PC vs. Mac, Ford vs. Chevy, or Kirk vs. Picard. With all due respect I disagree. It is much more like a public policy debate. There are those of us in any of the Oracle, DB2, or PostgreSQL camps who feel like the RDBMS should be responsible for maintaining data integrity, because we value our data. The fact that I don't have a use for MySQL does not withstand everything else I say here. FWIW, I don't consider MySQL to be an RDBMS. I consider it to be a RDBSS (Relational Database Storage System). It does not adequately provide features to Manage (i.e. the M in RDBMS) or Present your data to make it worthwhile where one needs an RDBMS. That being said, it works well for certain types of applications which don't need these features nor worry as much about data integrity as an accountant might. This is why, in the end, what you want to do with your data will determine your choice. However, of the Free DB's, PostgreSQL will give you the most growth potential, while MySQL may give you the most ready-to-use-apps. This last comment is entirely on-topic because it asks back: What are your ultimate plans for the data? Only then can you make a reasonable choice. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Best DB
Giudice, Salvatore wrote: MySQL: Speed, Power and Precision Thanks, I will file this in my MySQL Appointment Book under Feb 31. Oh, you mean that is not a valid date? MySQL had no problem with it... Seriously though, precision and accuracy are not strongpoints of MySQL. MySQL really has been designed to work extremely well for content management systems. And it does this quite well. However, for applications where the precision of your data manners, MySQL is not worth trusting under any circumstances, IMO. For example: Feb 31 is a valid date, as is Feb 29, 2005. -00-00 is also a valid date. If you create a numeric(4,2) field, and insert into it a value like 100 it will truncate your number without even raising an error. Text fields are truncated without so much as a warning. Under certain circumstances, a MyISAM talbe can be created where an Innodb table was specified, thereby running inserts/updates/deletes on that table outside transactional control. Again, an error is not reported. All of the above behaviors are violations of the ANSI SQL standards which under certain circumstances can endanger the integrity of your data. Look, I am not saying Don't use MySQL. I am saying that I don't use MySQL because I have no use for it. Also, MySQL does perform faster on simple selects with low concurrency than PostgreSQL does (1-2 clients). But if you get up to 32 concurrent users, some reports indicate that MySQL will actually take more time to run the queries concurrently than that serially, but YMMV. PostgreSQL does scale better for high concurrency usage under every single benchmark I have seen. With modern versions, it doesn't even require tuning unless you want to use that system solely as your database manager. Also, MySQL does not have many features I use for my more advanced work. It support for subselects is somewhat immature, and it has no support for views, stored procedures, triggers, schemas, complex data types, and the like. Iirc, it has no group or role permissions either, meaning that if you have a large number of users, managing the security can be a bear (yes, I have added emulation to some MySQL databases of this feature, but it is easier to add in other database managers). If you want to use MySQL, go ahead. That is fine. My business will even support you if you do. We just think that there are deficiencies in the database manager, so we run all our operations on PostgreSQL and only support MySQL for some customer applications. If you are so keen on paying for something, try buying support - MySQL AB. With PostgreSQL, you could get support from a mom and pop shop... However, either way you will save tons of money over Oracle. You could get PostgreSQL support from a mom-and-pop shop. Same with MySQL... Of course that is not the only place you can get support. Fujitsu is now selling a version of PostgreSQL which they support, for example. PostgreSQL, Inc. also sells support and pays at least some members of the core development team. Then there are businesses such as Metatron Technology Consulting (shameless plug, we will support both, BTW), SRA, and Command Prompt, each of which offer high quality support. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: Best DB
At the risk of sounding like a closed source fan (I'm not) I do think you should at least consider Oracle for this job. I built a system a few years ago which takes a constant stream of entries from a number (100) of remote systems analizes them and generates reports (see http://www.westpoint.ltd.uk/example-reports/reports/index.htm) We use Oracle for it, and it has been great. Also they have improved the weakest points: 1) pricing - It is now _much_ cheaper than it was 2) Install - I had a couple of oracle newbies install it in a couple of hours, that was never possible in the old days. On the other hand, PostgreSQL is Free and can be installed for light use in under an hour from source by a first time user, or far less time than that if you use RPM's etc. Tuning it for heavy load can take a little more time, but that is life with a read DB (Oracle is not so different in this regard. Once you have it there are _stacks_ of neat features and a really solid performance. I am especialy fond of the ability to put java into triggers (we send SNMP traps to ops console when specific error conditions occur on inserts) and the whole oracle Text and XML integration has saved me _months_ of development time on various project. Ditto with PostgreSQL. Except that usually triggers are written in PLPGSQL, Perl, or C. I don't know whether PHP, Python, or Java support triggers yet but I am sure that they will soon :-) Anyway. People's main gripes regarding PostgreSQL tend to come down to: 1) Slow performance under heavy load. Historically (prior to 7.4), PostgreSQL installed with very conservative memory settings, allowing it to run on pretty much any system made after the 1970's (ok, that is an overstatement but you get the idea). It required tuning to get good performance under heavy concurrent use. Nowadays, it does a better job of autodetecting settings, but if you need a *lot* of concurrent connections, you will still want to do some tuning. 2) Historically, the alter table command was a bear. Nowadays it is better. 3) PostgreSQL doesn't ship with a GUI interface, so go get phppgadmin, Pgaccess, or Pgadmin III. The selling points are: 1) Extremely good performance under load (+/- 10% compared to commercial RDBMS's when properly tuned) 2) Extensible data types 3) User defined functions in a wide variety of languages including Java, TCL, Perl, Bash(!), Python, PHP, and more. 4) Extreme care taken on making sure your data is consistant and meaningful. Compared to MySQL which does not take so many precautions, PostgreSQL is the way to go. As an aside, PostgreSQL and Oracle differ in whether they consider empty strings to be synonymous with NULL values. Oracle says Yes, while PostgreSQL (and iirc the ANSI standard) says No, but this is a minor point which is usually academic. But whatever you do, don't trust your accounting information to MySQL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] problem with TE-405P
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On January 21, 2005 10:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have two TE-405Ps that I am having trouble with. I'm using an Intel 865 motherboard with a Celeron D processor. Kernel 2.4.26, Slackware 10.0. 9: 0 XT-PIC t4xxp That is a bad thing... not only are you on IRQ9 but the PCI slot does not seem to be able to signal interrupts. I don't think that is the cause of the full failure. IRQ issues are real and this needs to be changed. But, I don't think that is the half of the problem. Have you tried swapping slots or adjusting the BIOS to make the damn thing use a real interrupt? Using IO-APIC might also help (requries a kernel recompile IIRC the 2.4.26 kernel slackware has provided doesn't have IO-APIC support installed). 05:03.0 Communication controller: Xilinx Corporation: Unknown device 0314 (rev 01) Yeah mine is coming up as 0314 -- I am curious as to why it's coming up wrong, the PCI IDs should be the same on every TE405P. Interesting. Makes me wonder what caused the misreporting. I don't want to sound pessimistic and I really think you should contact Digium as soon as possible for support on this. But IME, usually problems of this sort are caused by some sort of failing hardware. It could be related to the PCI slot, the card, or something else. My first troubleshooting steps would include changing the slot, re-running lspci to see if anything changed. If so, you may have a dying system board. I also noted that it is reading the card as a bridge rather than a communications controller. So something is screwed up. If I could hazard to guess, I think the motherboard may be jumbling something relating to that slot. If that is the case, you may want to dig further and see whetehr you want to replace the motherboard. Also, it would be nice if you keep us posted regarding your attempt to solve this problem. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting Have you contacted Digium on this? It's a USD$1500 card and support is included in that price. They'll likely want root login on that machine so have it handy (change your root password beforehand). -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] kind of urgent
Shoval Tomer wrote: Hi all. Can anyone comment why shouldn't we use FC 3 for an * production system? Depends. If you have already chosen FC3, then I would assume that you are comfortable with its limitations (services are community rather than vendor based, there is a fair bit of experimental software included, etc). These are limitations that cause many people to decide not to use FC3 for mission-critical production systems (such as a PBX). However, it depends on your desire to rely on vendor support and long release cycles for your production system. If these are not issues, then there is absolutely no reason not to use FC3. There are some added complexities, such as udev, SE-Linux, etc. which can require additional study, but these are comparitively minor, and although they add some additional support overhead during the installation phase, they have their uses and can be used to create a better system. If you need support for the distro, you can contact any number of consultants (my business included) and it will generally be supported separately from Asterisk anyway. I'm not looking to start a distro war, but we just found out that redhat 9 (and FC 1) don't support SATA drives, and apparently FC 3 does. In general, you can do some research on how to get SATA drives to work with 2.4 kernels, though it may change how you go about updating your system. I have been very happy with FC3 after the initial learning curve, BTW. We are only familiar with red hat and are in a point in time that switching distros is not available. The guy installing the system is already on location. Well, if he gets it running, then you have no reason to migrate :-) Some people have had trouble with udev and SE-Linux with various services, so just suggesting that getting the system running is the hardest part. Yes, I know we made a silly mistake. Please help us... Thanks. Shoval ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] T-1 vs channelised T-1?
Damon Estep wrote: In part I'm trying to figure out at extactly what point it might make sense for a small office to consider a T-1 vs DSL incombination with POTS or BRI. Also, I'm just very curious. Michael -- Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sr. Product Specialist www.pixelpower.com Pixel Power Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] o713-861-4005 o800-905-6412 c713-201-1262 Keep in mind that a 1.5mbps T1 is a full duplex circuit, 1.5 up and 1.5 down at the same time, you need a 3mbps DSL line to get 1.5mbps up and 1.5mbps down at the same time. Voip traffic requires 2 way data streams, wheras TYPICAL internet use is more down than up. Here are a few things to consider: Fractional T1's don't have the 4 to 2 wire conversions at your phone switch of you are doing VOIP or other digital telephony technologies. As a result, you should not have to deal with echo cancellation as much if you are on a fully digital circuit. This means your system is simpler and easier to maintain if everything is digital end-to-end. However, T1 cards are far more expensive for a few lines than FXO cards so if you only need two lines, you might consider a BRI instead, and maybe POTS with DSL. Fractional T1's are just an ordinary T1 with only a certain number of channels active. You still have all the hardware needed for a T1, but you are not paying for more capacity than you need on the actial telco connection. For 4 or fewer lines, I would probably consider dual BRI's or quad FXO's (due to infrastructure cost) but for more than that, I think that the T1 solution is so much easier to work with that it wins out completely. Of course if you need to be able to add capacity quickly, then the fractional T1 is better. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Netiquette, newbies, politeness and such (was G.729 . . . I SMELL SMOKE!)
Jim Van Meggelen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 01:06 -0400, Jim Van Meggelen wrote: Few will disagree that the careful application of netiquette will be a benefit to any newsgroup/mailing list/board; and top posting is something that should be used sparingly. Nevertheless, top posting is not the horrid crime some might have us believe. When used appropriately, it serves very well, and only causes offense to the ideologues. Me too-type top posing is usually of no benefit, but when someone is commenting on a tangled and involved thread, it can make sense to frame the entirety of the thread in a thoughtful top post. Don't forget the same people who refuse to trim the bottom of the post and we end up with 20(your case only 1) copy of the mailing list footer. Sure, but then do we want to start picking on grammar and spelling as well? That's something that drives me nuts, yet I realize that many people consider it to be unimportant. It was a hotly debated topic in Usenet for some years, until it was realized that the community was not served by all of this endless bickering about grammar and punctunation. Many people fear, however, that eventually we wi11 |\|0+ b3 4b13 +0 u|\|d3r5+4|\|d 34(|-| 0+|-|3r 4|\|ym0r3 (thanks to http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/l/leetspea.htm for the translation to leetspeak/133+5p34k). I think that this is an important point. There are times when you want to preserve context. In the case of this, I think that there are times when top posting is not always a bad thing. And sometimes even mail comes in out of order, so if the parent has not arrived, it is hard to understand what someone is referring to. In this case, sometimes more context is better. Tolerance, people. . Not at all. I respect that truth. On the other hand, I also know that some people are able to attain knowledge easier than others -- their minds simply absorb knowledge more efficiently. People who are less capable in this regard know this, and may prefer to obtain their answers from someone they consider an expert -- rather than do reserch on their own. Is this an offense; or is it a compliment? Also understand that often we read the documentation and if we don't have extensive background, it makes sense to ask questions. Let me make an important point. I have been on the Asterisk list for a while. When I started, the list was primarily useful for bug reporting. Most other questions were not answered on list, though if you were lucky, someone might follow-up and try to sell you a solution off-list. Now, I have been on many open source email lists, and this was just not very newbie friendly. For reference, I think that the PostgreSQL list is probably the most helpful of any I have seen so far. But over time, as Asterisk has matured and the community expanded, the list has become much more useful for newbies and everyone else. It is now one of the better communities I have seen and is always improving. Part of my measure is the frequency that questions in general get answered. Lets face it-- many of us are self-taught. We read and research, but we might end up with holes in our knowledge, so many of us will end up asking braindead questions from time to time. Part of what makes the community valuable is its ability to answer these questions. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
OT License Wars, was [Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice
of X11, contributed various code fixes and other things back to that project, though the driver I wrote for the propietary touchscreen stuff was not sent back to MIT... what would the point have been? If you haven't realised the point of open source software and software freedom by now then I can't really see the benefit in explaining it to you again. Perhaps you should apply for a job at Microsoft or Apple. Sorry, I don't believe in software freedom. It's a ridiculous concept, at least up until the technology is sentient, wakes up, and says I desire freedom. We don't extend the right of freedom even to other living creatures. We don't extend the right of freedom to our cars, our computers, or our cell phones. Let's be real. I don't buy this rhetoric of software freedom either (i.e. software code wants to be free-- software code doesn't want anything). However, I do think that there is substantial benefit to licensing almost any block of code under open source license. You have to understand that the point is that it is a more efficient model of software development and maintenance. Regarding the touchscreen driver-- unless you want to offer this as a barrier to competition, there is no point in not releasing the source. Stallman's rhetoric of Free Software (not what you or I are objecting to, btw) is ok as far as it goes, but what gives the development its power is that has tangible economic benefits, not that it is somehow morally right. I will note, however, that freedom and the flexibility it offers is such an economic benefit. I do believe in allowing people the freedom to receive source, modify it, and distribute it, all at their option. That's free software. The GPL restricts one of those freedoms, and as such, is less free than something like the BSD license. As I said-- you have the right to participate in this community-driven model or not at your option. In the end, I have a hard time imagining proprietary software holding on except in a few niche markets (thinking 10-20 years in the future). At least the GPL would have protected the project from an even worse situation - wholesale code theft and lock-up. Theft? Lock-up? No. That's what happens when someone actually breaks a license. Exactly. The BSD would allow this sort of thing to continue legally. The GPL would not, and purposefully prevents open source software from being closed. Huh? No. The BSD license does not allow that sort of thing. The instant someone applies the BSD license to a bit of code and someone else accepts it, it becomes a gift. When you give someone a gift, they are not stealing it from you. By definition. Giving away code under the GPL could be construed as a gift as well, but it is more like Indian giver (apologies to Indians everywhere) in that the giver has attached strings to it. I don't know about you, but when I give out gifts at Christmas, I don't say oh and if you improve this then you have to give it back to me (or something like that). ... JG I disagree with both of you on some points. The BSD license provides a framework for freely sharing ideas and code, while the GPL exchanges code for certain conditions regarding derivative works. I used to argue that Linux would not have taken off were it not for the GPL, but now I am not sure how much of it was due to the GPL and how much was due to Linus's skill at building community. There is an incentive to contribute code back to a BSD project-- this means that the code is more likely to be reviewed, and eventually community maintained, eventually freeing up some labor which might otherwise have had to go to ensuring that the code is compatible with the latest release. It also provides a way to hurt ones competition by releasing free components that competition is keeping proprietary and thus devaluing their products. The GPL's version of this tactic is also quite available and is more of an area denial effect. Both systems are roughly equal here. I usually use the GPL for my source releases. But I can see using the BSD license if that helps me build community. Also the GPL can be abused (MySQL client libs being GPL for example, essentially requiring a source license for other OSS licenses). THe license is less important ot me than the community. With a strong community, nobody can compete with an oss project. As a side note, I have been on this list for some time, and I have noticed a *strong* development of community here especially as the push stated to release 1.0 some time ago. Well done folks :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: {SPAM?} Asterisk VIA SSH Tunnels
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: Aidan Van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It works. I've done it. Tunnel 0.0.0.0/0 through IPSEC. Don't use AH. Make sure you're local networking is set up to use the extruded address that goes through your IPSEC tunnel. Wow. That's a pretty cool hack. I think I may have to try that... But will it actually handle the underlaying physical transport network suddenly changing? -tih IPSec operates on the IP layer. It will use whatever routing table you have. Now, TCP connections will probably be interrupted in any case if your IP address changes, but that is the nature of the protocol. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: {SPAM?} [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk VIA SSH Tunnels
This is not an endorsement of any methodology, just a few points: 1) CIPE though non-standard, uses a UDP-based transport. Therefore it can be used to tunnel just about anything, and can be used for VPN servers, though probably not routers. 2) CIPE is lighter-weight than IPSec. However, the fact that it is non-standard means that your end-point needs to support it. 3) CIPE is capable of being forwarded through a SOCKS proxy. Ipsec cannot do this. Personally I would use IPSec, but there are circumstances where it is not the optimal solution. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] GPL Violations (Was: Advice on OS Choice)
Last time I read the RHEL EULA, there were a couple of points: 1) If you use their enterprise services, you must use these services for every RHEL system deployed. 2) You at the time, were still allowed to redistribute the software, provided that the above provision was followed in house. I.e. the EULA coveres the services rather than the software. Note this was about 2 years ago so it may not be up to date. I have not heard anything in that time to suggest that their policy has changed, however. Best Wishes, Chris travers Metatron Tech. consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice
Joe Greco wrote: On 14-Oct-2004, Joe Greco wrote: The GPL strips some of these freedoms by forcing the distribution of source code. It does not, however, prevent the code from being sold. This is not what is concerning about RedHat's behavior. Then I apologize, I thought the point was that they were selling it, but perhaps you've got a finer point here that I missed. Sorry. :-) They require you to purchase RHEL if you intend to use it. I don't misunderstand the GPL in that it allows them to sell RHEL. I am confused how they can disallow people from using it without payment. RedHat further encumbers RHEL with a EULA which extends the GPL and further restricts your rights to use the product. That, then, sounds like it might be a violation of the GPL. The GPL is, sadly, a maze of twisty little untested legal strategies, and even the IP lawyers don't know for sure. When I worked at Microsoft, our legal department allowed us to redistribute RHEL in house for competitive work. This was about 2 years ago, and I read the EULA at that time. At the time, it did NOT say that you could not use the software in any way you want. Rather it said that if you used the services, you had to agree to play by certain rules. These included the obligation to either buy support for all systems or none (to prevent a support shell game) etc. Bearing in mind that it is highly unlikely (but nonetheless possible) that RedHat is able to distribute the code under a non-GPL'd license, of course. I would imagine that this would require the permission of thousands of contributors. They almost certainly haven't done that. Let's see what they did (read, read, read) I haven't read all of this extensively, nor have I had our IPL look at it, but it kind of looks like they're using some bizarre combination of trademark protection and transferrence of responsibility to make what you're talking about sort-of happen. Section 1 of the EULA says, essentially, go ahead, it's GPL. Section 2 of the EULA says, essentially, But we own our trademark and you cannot distribute that and we've stamped it all over the place. So if you distribute it you better damn well remove them all and woe to you if you fsck up. This would be a change from what I read Perhaps things have changed Wonder what their reasoning is. Is their EULA posted online? Best Wishes, Chris travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk VIA SSH Tunnels
Alex Barnes wrote: Just my 2p. But might it not be a better idea to push for proper secure SIP support. However this requires a number of steps in the * dev: - TCP Support for SIP - TLS Support for SIP - SIPS Support - Secure codec support via * (SRTP - http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-SRTP) tho transcoding is probably not needed as that would defeat the object. Else would VPN's with IPSec or whatever incur less overhead Overhead is not really the issue. The problem has to do with the internals of TCP an UDP. In general if you run UDP over TCP you will have issues due to the acknowledgement, state handling, etc and the fact that this can introduce delays when packets get dropped (a TCP connection will wait for the missing packet and let the retry happen, while UDP just goes on to the next packet, which is important for streaming audio such as VOIP). What happens then is that a dropped packet will not cause jitter but rather a delay in the audio. This is the problem. IPSec will probably introduce more overhead than a simple UDP over TCP, it will create far better sound quality. I am not sure whether SSH has more or less overhead than IPSec (I suspect less, but I am not sure), but the important issue is that IPSec allows Udp to be run over IP like it was designed to be run rather than over a TCP tunnel, so you have better performance. UDP over TCP is not always so bad-- something like DNS or NetBIOS is going to do very little other than add potential delay and a little overhead. But for streaming applications, it is disasterous. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] G729 licenses
Kevin Walsh wrote: Andreas Sikkema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a few codecs, other than G.729, that you may not have heard of. These include GSM, iLBC and SpeeX, to name a few. Paying for G.729 licenses, however cheap they may appear, only encourages the monopolists. The problem being that those are not supported by the devices we use. Unfortunately we don't have the influence (yet?) to change that. And you will never have that influence if you continue to encourage the G.729 monopolists. I am going to jump in here. I think that it is clear from looking at the history of software and computer hardware that the market is competitive enough that systems which are heavily encumbered by licensing restrictions will always lose to systems which are not. We can remember IBM's Microchannel Architecture and GIF as the great examples of what happens to heavily patented technologies (even in environments where open source has not taken off yet). The reason is simple economics and beyond the scope of this discussion except to say that such restrictions cause additional production costs with vendors would rather avoid. Unless the patented technology is *so much better* than its competitors to deliver enough value to make up for these restrictions, it is simply not competitive. As other technologies are getting better too, patented technologies cannot generally remain competitive through even most of their useful life. Therefore these technologies die, and this is why patents which are valid for more than, say, 5 years end up hurting innovation and stifling the software economy (not just open source). It is quite possible that when G.729 came out, it did provide compelling value. However, this has changed. I think we will start to see more devices supporting GSM, Speex, etc. in the near future, and G.729 will be eventually relegated to legacy support. My suggestion to people is Don't buy new equipment requiring G.729. You may still need licenses for equipment you already have, but you don't want to be tied to a technology which is beginning to die. Best Wishes, Chris travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] telnet and Root
neil wrote: Sorry if this is posted to the wrong forum but as it is related to a problem I have with Asterisk it may just scrape through!! I am running Fedora 1 and I can telnet in to my asterisk box as any user except root and am using the same credentials as logging in locally. I am new to Linux and any help would be gratefully appreciated. OpenSSH is much easier to secure than Telnet because most telnet servers and clients expect to pass the passwords to eachother in plain site. If you MUST use telnet, please set up Kerberos and configure it to encrypt the entire session, not just the login. you must use the telnet server and client that comes with the kerberos distribution as well. However, in general it is easier to set up SSH than to set up kerberized telnet in a secure way. Due to its vulnerability, most telnet servers will not allow root to log in via telnet. OpenSSH has a configuration option for this, and can be set either way. You can get OpenSSH from http://www.openssh.org. It depends on openssl which is available from http://www.openssl.org. Thanks Neil begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] telnet and Root
Steve Szmidt wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 20 August 2004 06:02 am, Thomas Kuepper wrote: use ssh instead of telnet. telnet is a bad idea. And the reason telnet is a bad idea, is because it sends the password in clear text. Today there's no valid reason to use telnet over ssh. First of all, Kerberos comes with a telnet server which can be as secure as OpenSSH. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft starts using kerberized telnet as part of their SFU (last time I asked, they were concerned about licensing issues with OpenSSH and had no plans to include it). So telnet might not be as dead as one might think. However, One must take care when using Kerberized telnet servers for important administration because they can be easily misconfigured not to encrypt the session or to fall back on plain text transfers. Also, many binary distributions of openssh don't support kerberos, which makes kerberized telnet more scalable in many instances. Best Wishes, Chris travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] telnet and Root
Mark Woods wrote: Chris Shaw wrote: If you really want to be able to telnet in as root, locate telnetd.conf or somesuch and it should be in there somewhere as a yes/no. (It is for ssh anyway..) No, not under any distro I'm familiar with... It's under /etc/securetty... You add the tty of the device you want to allow root access to, like pts/0... DON'T DO THIS THOUGH, unless you don't care that your root password will be sent PLAINTEXT over the internet... He may not be telneting to it across the internet. He may only be doing it from his local network. That being said, I like almost everyone else, recommend ssh *and* su, though I'm guilty of logging in as root across the internet with ssh. Nah. Private key authentication is probably more secure for this. I have my ssh servers generally set up to require key authentication and deny password authentication. This does effectively force me to su with ssh because I haven't set up the key authentication for the root account, but I am still not sure that there is that much more to be gained. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: OT: Re: [Asterisk-Users] John Vogel
Leif Madsen wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:34:08 -0700, Chris Travers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just submitting this to the list as a whole for peer review and additional feedback. General suggestions for authoring: 1) Learn LaTeX or at least LyX. It will professionally arrange your table of contents, index, etc. quite well, and your publisher can control the layout quite well using external style sheets. If your publisher doesn;t want to go to this trouble it will still greatly simplify your creation and maintenance of your book as it becomes longer. Also, if you end up publishing it yourself, LaTeX will provide you with great features which will make your life MUCH easier and your work MUCH more professional-looking. Personally I write all my documents in LaTeX using vim but that is strictly a matter of personal preference. You could use Docbook SGML or XML instead of LaTeX, but I find LaTeX much simpler ot use. I personally love DocBook. Works very well for this type of thing. I can't comment on LaTeX as I've never used it, but I'm sure its very similar. If you want to see a project which uses DocBook, check out the Asterisk-Docs project. Obviously a work in progress, but its allowed us to very simply generate HTML and PDFs. Just to clarify and explain. Docbook is an SGML subset which is used to markup documentation. The Linux Documentation Project uses it extensively. LaTeX is a set of TeX macros to allow simple development of printed material. (TeX is a typesetting program and langauge developed for such projects as mathematics textbooks.) To generate a PDF from Docbook, you put it through the following stages: 1: Convert DocBook SGML to LaTeX 2: Convert LaTeX to PDF. I find LaTeX to be extremely easy to use once you get the hang of it, and like Docbook, it is content oriented, so you can apply the actual layout rules separately from the document. LyX is nothing more than a structured LaTeX editor (What you See is what you Mean). I personally write my LaTeX docs in vim because I find that I have more control over them and LyX isn't so good at business card design. Generally speaking, if you want to generate HTML as well as PDF and Postscript, you do best with docbook. I prefer LaTeX however for simple PDF generation because it is extremely mature and extensible. LaTeX is ideal also if you just want to create postscript documents for printing or publishing. BTW, all of the whitepapers at http://www.metatrontech.com/wpapers are written in LaTeX. LaTeX and Docbook are both high-end projects designed to work for real publishing tasks. In most respects, they are much more advanced than something like Adobe Pagemaker. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
OT: Re: [Asterisk-Users] John Vogel
Just submitting this to the list as a whole for peer review and additional feedback. General suggestions for authoring: 1) Learn LaTeX or at least LyX. It will professionally arrange your table of contents, index, etc. quite well, and your publisher can control the layout quite well using external style sheets. If your publisher doesn;t want to go to this trouble it will still greatly simplify your creation and maintenance of your book as it becomes longer. Also, if you end up publishing it yourself, LaTeX will provide you with great features which will make your life MUCH easier and your work MUCH more professional-looking. Personally I write all my documents in LaTeX using vim but that is strictly a matter of personal preference. You could use Docbook SGML or XML instead of LaTeX, but I find LaTeX much simpler ot use. 2) Hiring an editor is worth the expense. The editor functions as a second set of eyes which can spot issues maybe you haven't. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry you feel Strongly about the book but, Iâm not trying to rip anyone off but as it said on the back of the book and under the author Iâm new, to writing books I am trying to help the community out, But I guess this doesnât really matter to you, But if you know so much about asterisk and the way a book should be laid out why donât you write one? BTW I am open to ideas on improving the book as I said above I am not trying to rip anyone off The Author of Asterisk For Small Office Setup Dan Cole Best of whishes to you and your avengerâs ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Pager Notification
S Does Asterisk support pager notification of new voicemails out of the box? Or do I need an AGI script to do that? AGI isn't the route for this. Most pagers support an email gateway, just use it. Maybe you need to trigger it with a procmail rule. I was asking because my customer specifically wanted Asterisk to call the pager. My own idea was that if email notifications would not work, I could use an agi script to send the pager number to a message queue and make the calls out in an async fashion. I am quite aware of the nature of the limitations of AGI in this setting, but they want this to be handled this way because it is what their customers are used to. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Asterisk-Users] Pager Notification
Hi; Before I tell a customer that this would require custom development I figured I would ask here. Does Asterisk support pager notification of new voicemails out of the box? Or do I need an AGI script to do that? Also, if I want to call a number from an automated program in Asterisk and get the DTMF tones entered by the user on the other side, is there an easy way to do this? Best Wishes. Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [Asterisk-Users] OT: fax obsoleted? Was: Re: Fax via email
Hi. Just my $0.02 worth on this question. However, fax is still very much alive and healthy in the area of imaged document exchange where the website or e-mail use would not be appropriate - i.e., where the sender wants to initiate the document exchange and the document is in a more-than-text form or image of some kind (applications, completed applications, handwriting, etc.). Furthermore, I don't see this usage of fax going away any time soon. Indeed, technology seems to be providing better and better ways for this to continue, and I see no end to this sender-initiated use of fax. Agreed to some extent. However, most cases I think are somewhat overstated. I.e. people do fax applications back and forth in part because formats like MS Word don't necessarily guarantee layout. If PDF's were more commonly used, this would be more obsolete. But PDF producing and editing software is expensive, and you cannot exactly sign a PDF with your handwritten signature and send it back using standard hardware and software. On the other hand, there is a general perception that a signature on a fax will be somewhat better than a signature on an email from a legal perspective (IANAL, though). This is where I have seen the greatest continuation of the fax. It's worth pointing out that e-mail works off of a different premise than fax, and therefore cannot ever fully obsolete fax as it is. Unlike a website or fax, e-mail does not provide a mechanism for both the sender and the receiver to negotiate the communication and presentation of the document. E-mail permits the sender to send arbitrary filetypes with arbitrary formatting which the receiver may or may not be able to utilize easily. With a website the receiver should be aware of what they are clicking on, and with fax the receiver capabilities are communicated at the outset to the sender, and the sender must select tranmission parameters from those capabilites. Thus, with fax the sender can have a reasonably good degree of confidence that when the receiver sends the confirmation signal (MCF) that the receiver can view the document and that it appears to the receiver nearly exactly the same way as it appears to the sender. Not only can you not do this with e-mail, but furthermore with e-mail you only know that your outbound mail relay has accepted the mail or not. You do not have any reassurance that that the intended recipient actually did receive the message. And with the large amount of spam out there (very large in comparison to the quantity of junk faxes), spam filters, e-mail viruses, and such, e-mail really isn't a very good means to transmit these kinds of things. Fair enough. But I think the largest advantage I have seen you point out is the fact that email is packet-switched, and store-and-forward while the fax is connection-switched and delivered immediately or not at all. Therefore fax systems are fundamentally more reliable than email. But, let me ask you this. Suppose that I produced PDF forms which could be edited and then uploaded into a drop-box on my web site. This does not address some of the concerns about www/email vs fax, but it does address many of them. I suspect that you are right-- that fax services will eventually become merged with the internet, but we will need to see how that exactly occurs. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [Asterisk-Users] NetworkWorld article on Open Source Telephony
Senad Jordanovic wrote: Jeremy McNamara wrote: Chris Bond wrote: I think one thing * is lacking at the moment is a web interface to manage and add users and do anything you can do via a shell interface. If it had that but on a simplified level (oblessly you can have an advanced mode too). The power of asterisk comes from its method of config. If one wraps it with a GUI one will inherently limit the flexibility. Then since the GUI is what gets 'seen' people ~may~ take the lack of flexibility or even just the look and flow of the GUI to be a reflection on the power of Asterisk. Maybe, maybe not... Depending how one designs the GUI! No, I think that GUIs though needed, do limit flexibility because the information density is limited on the user-system direction (they are better on the System-user end, however). However, this is NOT an argument not to package them with the project. When I was a newbie at Samba, I used to use SWAT (Samba Web Admin Tool) all the time. However, eventially I discovered that it became easier for me to just modify the config files. This process would not have occurred as easily if I had to learn the config files at first. Guis are great at allowing less knowledgable people to administrate the server with relative competency. They are not so good at allowing one to really engineer the right solution for a customer. So I think both interface types are needed. Another example is X11 on Linux with lots of admin tools. Great for newbies, just not the best for experts. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting Your Partner in Technology begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Asterisk-Users] Cisco 7940 Phones as paging system?
Hi all; I have been searching for an answer to a question that a customer asked me and I have only found a few older answers. So, wanting to find out if anyone has any experience with this issue and can help provide me with some advice. I have a customer which is strongly interested in using Asterisk as a PBX. One of the core requirements, however, is that the system MUST be able to support intercom/paging. Having searched the archives, it appears that this question was asked about 6 months ago, and the answer was that the Cisco phones support this using SCCP and having one line set to auto-answer, but at the time this was not supported in the SIP image. Is this still the case? Although I know that SIP is the preferred protocol for connecting these phones with Asterisk, how stable/reliable are the skinny channels? Is there any reason I should be rethinking this solution? Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [Asterisk-Users] vm e-mail notification stopped
Paul Tyreman wrote: Sending e-mail on my server has never worked. It always bounces back to the server saying it was undeliverable !? Its a right pain. Last time I had this problem, the culprit was DNS/hostname issues. Check the exact error message in the message. Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Asterisk-Users] Questions
Hi All; I am looking at building a new PBX, replacing a Sprint CTX-based system. I have a few new questions I have not had any answers to: 1: Will Asterisk work with Sprint Protege phones? Anybody have any experience with it? These are the 26 button phones with display 2: Any recommendations on phones? For what it is worth, this will likely be a PBX with 8 inbound lines and 25 individual telephone lines. I would rather save the money over the 25 phones Best Wishes, Chris Travers begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Asterisk-Users] Another Newbie Question: Does Asterisk allow for a hot failover solution in case of failure?
Hi all; I think I have the capacity issues figured out. My next question is whether I can use asterisk for a redundant solution so that if any hardware failure occurs on the phone switch, a spare PBX can route the new calls. I have not been able to find this in the docs, and IIRC, it is possible with Bayonne. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
[Asterisk-Users] Newbie Question: ISDN and Capacity Planning
Hi all; I am planning a PBX/Voice mail system for a small business (approx 12 employees with phones). They have an inbound ISDN PRI, which is probably irrelevant because all inbound calls are routed first to receptionists which rarely route the calls on (client is a medical clinic). Any idea what sort of capacity planning I should be looking at? Any minimum and optimal figures would be good, as my bid will include redundant systems. Any hidden gotchas with ISDN I should be familiar with? It should be noted that phone use among most of the staff is low to average-- calls are rarely routed back to the doctors/nurses but they have occasional need to call out. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] Sorry for the duplicate
Hi; Sorry, I resent a message similar to the parent by mistake. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
