Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
We ordered one as soon as they were available. We haven't put into use yet though. We currently have an Asterisk (PbxInaFlash version) server in place and we would have lost a fair amount of capabilities if we had switched already. Every update that comes out adds in some of the stuff that we are using on PBIAF so we're getting closer to starting to use it I think. We're having to redesign our entire IVR setup though because they use time conditions completely different than FreePBX or Asterisk does. It does have some neat features. As far as phones, the Grandstream GXP2124 is WAY better than the old GXP2000s were. The new Grandstream phones with HD audio are definitely noticeably better quality on the calls. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:40 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. Total Control Panel Loginhttps://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net To: ja...@litewire.nethttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993domain=litewire.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orghttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=2086271067domain=litewire.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2bl-sender-address=1rID=242260993aID=2086271067domain=litewire.net this sender / Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2ent=1bl-sender-address=1rID=242260993aID=2086271067domain=litewire.net this sender enterprise-wide Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2bl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=2086271067domain=litewire.net wispa.org / Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2ent=1bl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=2086271067domain=litewire.net wispa.org enterprise-wide This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Skybeam Mentioned in DIGG article link
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2014/05/dear-internet-lets-demo-slow-lan e.html They were trying to explain what the slow lane could look like in the future for the web... but LIKE that a WISP was faster than all his home options, except Comcast 75M and Google Fiber at 800M... Good job, and hopefully you guys get good recognition out of this. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
Our consulting firm put one in at a lawyer’s office, to replace an OLD Nortel system. They wanted the simple ability to have an inbound call ring all phones, but if it times out after 3 rings, goto an IVR. We have been doing this for a long time with FreePBX, but it is limited with GS. The other bad thing about GS is there are SEVERAL bad bugs that done in a certain order, will deem the phone system unsuable… and you cannot restore from backup, you have to build it back from scratch. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Darin Steffl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM I put it in for a 12 extension small business and it's working great. Lots of firmware updates and new features being added every month or so. They're actively developing the platform which is nice. It's cost effective and free updates. Pair this with flowroute for your sip trunks and you have a solid solution. We used yealink for the phones but the grandstream phones should work great too and have auto provisioning then. On May 13, 2014 10:40 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote: Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be problematic. If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn whats available and how others are doing this. On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net -- *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM *Subject: *[WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing
Heith et al.,
There are a couple of economic questions that you need to answer first:
1. *Is there a customer device expense to your business? i.e. did you
send / install a device for the client that allows them to use your service
that the client doesn't pay for or pays monthly?*
1. If the answer to the first question is 'yes'. You should require a
minimum monthly spend to recoup your initial investment. The customer
premise devices are generally inexpensive and have a lifetime of 2 - 4
years. So assume a $250 device over a 4 year amortization you need to
collect, at a minimum, $5.20/month ($250 divided by 48 months). That
doesn't include carrying costs that you should recoup as well (deployed
capital should return more than 0%).
2. *Is there an expense to keeping that client active on your service
even if they aren't paying you any money?*
1. If the answer to the second question is 'yes'. You need to determine
how much the opportunity cost is to have capacity reserved on
your network.
For most this is a capacity management question. Most people will
oversubscribe their network to squeeze every last penny out of their
investment -- not necessarily a bad thing provided you maintain quality
during peak times. This varies for operators -- but you should asses at
least some value to having an on-demand connection available.
Once you determine your base expense for supporting a client -- how much
does it cost you just to have the client connected to your network, you
need to determine whether your clients are okay with paying full boat for
their internet connection even when they're not there? Or, are they
sensitive to spending money on a service that they do not deem critical and
as a result do not want the year long carrying expense?
Next consider local competition. Are there any other internet providers in
the area that have an offer to accommodate seasonal subscribers? If
there's something present, you may need to follow suit in order to remain
competitive. The best scenario is limited competition that allows you to
chart your own path.
My preference would be to create a 'low usage' tier. Throttle up and down
connectivity to force an upgrade to a more premium tier when the seasonal
clients are present -- but still collect a monthly service fee when they
are not. May seasonal guests have cameras, thermostats and other sensors
that require internet connectivity. That should be part of the sales pitch
when discussing disconnect vs. lower tier.
I suspect most seasonal clients would tolerate a $10 - $15/month internet
expense. And when they're present, ratchet that up to $50 - $80/month.
The idea is that when the seasonal client has upgraded you're making a lot
of margin to offset the loss of margin during the off-season -- the net
result is superior blended margins over a 12 months period.
Todd
--
*{ *name : *Todd Mitchell*,
company : Mobile Conduct Inc.,
title: Founder,
phone: +1.646.484.8080,
location : Houston, TX,
timezone : [GMT -6, Central US],
web : [mobileconduct.com]*}*
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote:
I am starting to get hit by part time users going to their fishing
house on the weekends. I also have customers that were on seasonal plans
where their internet was shut down while they were gone, however they
needed an active connection for remote access to thermostats and cameras.
So what’s an average price for selling usage based service? We currently
do not offer it now, but I may want to try it out on these instances
thanks
heith
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
*{ *name : *Todd Mitchell*,
company : Mobile Conduct,
title: Founder,
office : +1.281.404.7393,
mobile : +1.646.484.8080,
location : Houston, TX,
timezone : [GMT -6, Central US],
web : mobileconduct.com,
twitter : [@toddmitchell http://www.twitter.com/toddmitchell,
@mobileconduct https://twitter.com/mobileconduct],
facebook : [toddmitchell https://www.facebook.com/toddmitchell*,*
mobileconduct https://www.facebook.com/mobileconduct] *}*
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Redirect clients
How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site. Is there a inexpensive way to do this? What do you suggest? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients
Most of the billing systems will do this (ours will!), but barring that, you could use the web proxy with some firewall rules to do it in a MT router. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site. Is there a inexpensive way to do this? What do you suggest? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients
The term for this is 'Captive Portal'. You regularly see this where
internet access is paid for on-demand for a period of time (airport, hotel,
airplane, etc.). Most commercial ISP billing systems have this
functionality built in today. It is either done by intercepting HTTP or
DNS requests. Wikipedia has a relatively complete list of software options
if you don't have an in-house option today (check with your vendor):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal#Software_captive_portals
Todd
--
*{ *name : *Todd Mitchell*,
company : Mobile Conduct Inc.,
title: Founder,
phone: +1.646.484.8080,
location : Houston, TX,
timezone : [GMT -6, Central US],
web : [mobileconduct.com]*}*
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote:
How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site.
Is there a inexpensive way to do this?
What do you suggest?
Thanx
NGL
If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
*{ *name : *Todd Mitchell*,
company : Mobile Conduct,
title: Founder,
office : +1.281.404.7393,
mobile : +1.646.484.8080,
location : Houston, TX,
timezone : [GMT -6, Central US],
web : mobileconduct.com,
twitter : [@toddmitchell http://www.twitter.com/toddmitchell,
@mobileconduct https://twitter.com/mobileconduct],
facebook : [toddmitchell https://www.facebook.com/toddmitchell*,*
mobileconduct https://www.facebook.com/mobileconduct] *}*
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
I've never been a fan of anything grandstream has ever made so I wouldn't go there. JMO Get some other solution for the PBX (running your own software on a nice little atom works great / some flavor of asterisk) and do yourself a favor and pick up some yealink phones. The name kept me away from the longest time but I have tried dozens of phones and right now a T46G is on my desk and I won't give it up. Great price too. Best phone I have ever used and previously I had polycom soundpoint 650. This one hands down is a better solution and its half the price. Sh... don't tell everyone I need them in stock! Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be problematic. If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn whats available and how others are doing this. On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
I have one of these coming in to try out, they're dirt cheap and are supposed to be decent. They support up to 8 calls and are supposed to run on asterisk. http://www.atcom.cn/IP02.html Bryce D NETAGO From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 16:08 To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM I've never been a fan of anything grandstream has ever made so I wouldn't go there. JMO Get some other solution for the PBX (running your own software on a nice little atom works great / some flavor of asterisk) and do yourself a favor and pick up some yealink phones. The name kept me away from the longest time but I have tried dozens of phones and right now a T46G is on my desk and I won't give it up. Great price too. Best phone I have ever used and previously I had polycom soundpoint 650. This one hands down is a better solution and its half the price. Sh... don't tell everyone I need them in stock! Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 [http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg] From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.commailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be problematic. If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn whats available and how others are doing this. On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.netmailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518tel:%28305%29663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.netmailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.commailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] testing
testing -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients
No proxy required, just some NAT rules On 5/14/2014 4:28 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: Most of the billing systems will do this (ours will!), but barring that, you could use the web proxy with some firewall rules to do it in a MT router. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net mailto:n...@ngl.net wrote: How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site. Is there a inexpensive way to do this? What do you suggest? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients
Where do I put these rules, in the router? NGL From: Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients No proxy required, just some NAT rules On 5/14/2014 4:28 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: Most of the billing systems will do this (ours will!), but barring that, you could use the web proxy with some firewall rules to do it in a MT router. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site. Is there a inexpensive way to do this? What do you suggest? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
We find it easier to manage nat/routing issues via a hosted pbx. (Pbx is hosted on a Virtual Server VPS at the DataCenter) Using Mikrotik's as client routers (managed router service) is very practical. Setting up Dual ISP with Failover is a bit daunting task, however if you follow this, recipe to get it done.. http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US12/tomas.pdf Plus it is my opinion, that it is easier to manage / monitor / secure the PBX at the datacenter than one at client site. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be problematic. If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn whats available and how others are doing this. On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
Working around NAT issues with SIP and RTP has little-to-nothing to do with whether the PBX lives in the cloud or is a local piece of hardware. We do not (at this time) do hosted PBX ourselves, and NAT is generally not a problem. Our strategy isn't even to use something like STUN or TURN. It is simply to employ a B2BUA architecture, where both the SIP and RTP traffic is always guaranteed to come from a single IP, the same one that the customer phone or PBX initiated communication with when it registered itself to our SIP+RTP proxy (and we require SIP registration and don't offer static IP authentication as an option). We also use a low SIP registration expiration timer. That way the necessary port mappings are already in the NAT router's connection tracking table, so when an unsolicited SIP message hits their router, it gets sent to the right place, and those entries in the table are constantly getting refreshed. It probably doesn't hurt that in many cases, we also end up selling the customer a router that actually has a decent SIP ALG implementation (MikroTik/Linux). But I've found that even with the ALG turned off, everything still works fine. Security of a local PBX is also relatively straightforward. DO put the PBX behind a NAT, and DON'T create any static port forwards to it on the NAT router. Just let NAT/conntrack and the ALG do their jobs. Then unsolicited SIP traffic coming from hosts other than your own SIP proxy will never reach their PBX. Any attacker would first have to compromise the NAT router, and if they didn't have any reason to believe that you were running an IP PBX behind it anyway (and why would they if external scans never generated a response to a SIP message?), they would have no reason to go to the trouble of attempting to break into the router in order to gain access to the PBX, unless they were targeting your organization specifically (so, a person who had a beef with you/your customer, and not some automated bot spewing SIP INVITEs to thousands of public IPs). I am personally not a fan of the whole hosted PBX craze myself, although we may eventually feel the pressure of coming out with a product like that for our customers if the demand becomes such that we can no longer ignore it. I don't really get why people want it or where the benefit is. I think most people just have it in their heads that if they pay per port for a hosted solution, that method of pricing service has some inherent cost-savings built into it. That, and they think that having the PBX in the cloud rather than local means that it's one less piece of gear for them to maintain. But there is nothing preventing somebody (like the provider) from selling or renting the end-user a piece of hardware and also maintaining it for them remotely. The end result is the same: the customer doesn't have to worry about it. The huge downside I see with hosted PBX is that if the internet connection goes down or the cloud PBX becomes unreachable for some other reason, then all the phones that happen to be in the same building and connected to the same LAN don't work at all, even for, say, local phone-to-phone intercom calling in the same building, or group paging, or what-have-you. If you tried to sell a business individual internet connections for each computer in their organization, where all of the computers would have to go through the internet in order to exchange data with each other, people would think you are nuts. So why are people so eager to sell (and buy) phone service that works on the same principle? But I digress. -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM We find it easier to manage nat/routing issues via a hosted pbx. (Pbx is hosted on a Virtual Server VPS at the DataCenter) Using Mikrotik's as client routers (managed router service) is very practical. Setting up Dual ISP with Failover is a bit daunting task, however if you follow this, recipe to get it done.. http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US12/tomas.pdf Plus it is my opinion, that it is easier to manage / monitor / secure the PBX at the datacenter than one at client site. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not
Re: [WISPA] Redirect clients
Nat rules work as long as you have an ip. If it is a url you will need Web proxyunless this has changed recently. On May 14, 2014 7:56 PM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote: No proxy required, just some NAT rules On 5/14/2014 4:28 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: Most of the billing systems will do this (ours will!), but barring that, you could use the web proxy with some firewall rules to do it in a MT router. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: How can I redirect slow pay clients to a Pay your bill web site. Is there a inexpensive way to do this? What do you suggest? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certifiedwww.nwwnet.net(765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
Agreed, that SIP/RTP NAT issues are non-issue when you are using a consistent Router such as Mikrotik. B2BUA (Back to Back user agent, e.g. asterisk to asterisk) has its advantage and also it's own set of issues (typically in Codec Conversion ... STUN or TURN are not necessary either, all depends on the deployment. We don't depoly sip proxy either, we spin small instances (openvz) for each customer, have a scripted install for Freepbx, security etc.. let the phones register to the pbx directly. I strongly disagree about security for the pbx, it is irrelevant if the pbx is hosted or on client premises, security has to be proactive and reactive, static security is not sufficient, I believe it is less work maintaining a number of VPS vs a number of distributed hardware devices located at multiple client premises. As to the question of Hosted vs On-Premise, the right answer has to do with what I call external factors... e.g. in our neck of the woods, travel time is a significant factor, and cost of professional labor is high... being able to manage VPS, provisioning, backup, etc etc (we do all of this remotely from our office on machines located at the Data Center), we are able to do things much more efficiently than dealing with travel time and running around town. (Heck, only today, I turned up two new extension, one in Oklahoma, and another in Tennessee, for a Client based out of Carmel,IN, with local DID's, and these two extension are ready to be in service for tomorrow's business day !) I will agree with you that, having an on-premise pbx is advantageous when there is an internet outage (local ext. to ext calls work), this is the reason why most of our implementations have dual internet connections (which is easier for us to do in our neck of the woods), thus the hosted solution offering being more advantageous, (most folks are also carrying Cell Phones, and heavily utilize failover to cell in case of an outage). The flip side is, that if the hosted pbx is in the Data Center with redundant internet, it does not go down in case of internet outage the calls get directed to VM, or forwarded to Cell. Which is not true in-case of onsite pbx. I believe that Service Providers, need to learn how to deal with Voice on their network, and offer voice services to their customers, when done properly, it is most likely to be the MOST PROFITABLE service. If not done properly, it can be the biggest headache. SIP, Voice are mature and accepted Technologies, customers are receptive to it, and philosophically speaking I like to keep consistent with the Service Provider mentality... vs Hardware Sales mentality When we can offer anything as a service for recurring revenue, Why would we want to settle for a one time revenue from Hardware Sale and Integration ? I agree with you, that this is 75% NSP Business Owner philosophy, and about 25% actual Tech reasoning. I am glad to have this discussion on the list, hopefully this will get folk to consider / re-consider their position on offering Voice Services.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:39:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Working around NAT issues with SIP and RTP has little-to-nothing to do with whether the PBX lives in the cloud or is a local piece of hardware. We do not (at this time) do hosted PBX ourselves, and NAT is generally not a problem. Our strategy isn't even to use something like STUN or TURN. It is simply to employ a B2BUA architecture, where both the SIP and RTP traffic is always guaranteed to come from a single IP, the same one that the customer phone or PBX initiated communication with when it registered itself to our SIP+RTP proxy (and we require SIP registration and don't offer static IP authentication as an option). We also use a low SIP registration expiration timer. That way the necessary port mappings are already in the NAT router's connection tracking table, so when an unsolicited SIP message hits their router, it gets sent to the right place, and those entries in the table are constantly getting refreshed. It probably doesn't hurt that in many cases, we also end up selling the customer a router that actually has a decent SIP ALG implementation (MikroTik/Linux). But I've found that even with the ALG turned off, everything still works fine. Security of a local PBX is also relatively straightforward. DO put the PBX behind a NAT, and DON'T create any static port forwards to it on the NAT router. Just let NAT/conntrack and the ALG do their jobs. Then unsolicited SIP traffic coming from hosts other than your own SIP proxy will never reach their PBX. Any
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
Lots to address here. :) Thanks for engaging. By B2BUA, I don't mean Asterisk to Asterisk. I mean something like Asterisk itself...Asterisk is, by its very nature, a self-contained back-to-back user agent. That is, it doesn't just forward SIP messages from a proxy or UA upstream. It pretends to be both the final endpoint as well as the original calling UA, inserting itself into the middle of the conversation at all levels: it answers the incoming INVITE itself, and then generates a brand-new INVITE with a different ID/sequence number that it sends on, as if the originating INVITE is coming directly from that Asterisk instance. Asterisk also can proxy the RTP audio as well, such that the SDP content in the INVITE points back at itself rather than whatever the originating media gateway is. In a typical SIP switching/proxy architecture, this is just not done...the host that the target UA gets its marching orders from (SIP INVITE, etc.) is not necessarily where the audio stream comes from. It's also not necessarily the same proxy that future SIP messages for that particular session are expected to come from or go to. The RTP media gateway is oftentimes at a completely different IP address. All of this can serve to make the whole scheme very NAT-unfriendly and also makes crafting competent ALGs more tricky than one might assume. So NAT issues can arise even with known-good routers, and my point was not really that we are solving the problem by using good routers, but that we are trying to eliminate the problem at a different level so that we don't have to care 99% of the time what router a customer is using. Reducing the multitude of IP addresses that are involved in a typical SIP session from the destination UA's perspective down to a single IP plays a huge part i n this. Asterisk is a B2BUA in the SIP context not because that's what the authors of Asterisk consciously intended when it came to adding SIP support, but is rather that way by its very nature, because it was written from the ground up to be a technology-agnostic telephone platform, not a SIP-specific platform. Asterisk needs to be able to bridge channels from disparate interfaces and technologoes (TDM to SIP, analog to TDM, etc.). Asterisk treats SIP-to-SIP calls no differently internally than it treats SIP-to-ISDN or analog-to-PRI. The Asterisk core actually has no clue what technologies are behind the two channel legs that it is being asked to bridge together...that all gets abstracted away by the channel drivers. And at its core, Asterisk already knows how to do audio transcoding because it needs to be able to do that in order to fulfill its stated mission, even if it didn't have SIP support at all. In actuality, if all you are dealing with is pure SIP, a B2BUA such as Asterisk i s technically not as efficient from a resources perspective...because it is having to keep track of state information about all of the different active dialogs flowing through it *as well as* bridge and transcode all of the audio channels itself, it can't handle the same kind of call volume that a pure SIP proxy can. But we find it is worth the tradeoff in order to reduce or eliminate NAT headaches, since it's pretty easy and cheap to scale up Asterisk by launching additional instances of it. Hosted PBX solutions are often implemented as B2BUAs on the PBX-in-the-cloud side, which is probably why many people have experientially less NAT problems when using such a service. But the reason that they don't have as many NAT problems is not because it is a hosted PBX, as if there was something inherent to that concept on the technology side that reduces or eliminates NAT problems...it's because the PBX itself also happens to be a B2BUA in the way I've just been describing. That's what I was getting at. You use FreePBX, which is a layer on top of Asterisk, so it does not surprise me that you are also not finding yourself subject to NAT-related troubles most of the time. I never said that static security was sufficient; I was just trying to point out that the majority of security breaches happen when the PBX is exposed to the public and there is some bot out there systematically trying various extension #s and SIP secret combinations until it hits paydirt. You can mitigate that risk to some extent with rate-limiting or Fail2Ban and such tools, but if, as I suggested, the PBX doesn't have a public IP address in the first place and there are no port forwards in place, then the only way you are getting through to that PBX (or can even tell that there is a PBX there to get through to!) is if there is an exploitable security vulnerability in the NAT implementation itself. By definition, a hosted PBX is directly reachable on the public internet (unless you are using and requiring phones that have built-in VPN clients), whereas the local PBX doesn't have to be (and *shouldn't* be), so you tell me
Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
After re-reading what I wrote, I guess I should clarify the following: We have a homegrown SIP-based telephony service that is built on top of Asterisk, but which is emphatically not hosted PBX. We can provision an account as either a single line (one DID, one SIP registration from an ATA, 2 channels for call-waiting) or a SIP trunk (multiple DIDs, one SIP registration from a PBX, multiple channels), and whether it is a single-line or trunk account, the customer has the option of specifying an emergency call forward number that calls are sent to if either their ATA or PBX goes down for whatever reason, or if our main NOC goes down completely (worse-case scenario where all connectivity and power redundancy utterly fails). So we are using Asterisk, but we are not using it on our side in our NOC as a PBX in the traditional sense or understanding. We are using it more like a telephony software platform or SDK. If a customer needs a PBX and doesn't have a preference, we will sell them an Asterisk-based one (an Asterisk instance that is configured more traditionally) to live on their premesis, and typically also set up VPN access to it so that we can manage and troubleshoot it remotely. That on-site PBX will get calls sent to it from our Asterisk-based server. We do have enterprise-ish customers that do want BYOPBX, and they successfully peer (via SIP) with our Asterisk server using things like (e.g.) Cisco CallManager/UCM. So I feel that by attacking the voice provisioning problem in the same way that we attack data provisioning, we give customers options and flexibility that allow us to serve customers we would otherwise have to turn away, or who wouldn't even give us a passing glance. -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Anderson Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:17 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Lots to address here. :) Thanks for engaging. By B2BUA, I don't mean Asterisk to Asterisk. I mean something like Asterisk itself...Asterisk is, by its very nature, a self-contained back-to-back user agent. That is, it doesn't just forward SIP messages from a proxy or UA upstream. It pretends to be both the final endpoint as well as the original calling UA, inserting itself into the middle of the conversation at all levels: it answers the incoming INVITE itself, and then generates a brand-new INVITE with a different ID/sequence number that it sends on, as if the originating INVITE is coming directly from that Asterisk instance. Asterisk also can proxy the RTP audio as well, such that the SDP content in the INVITE points back at itself rather than whatever the originating media gateway is. In a typical SIP switching/proxy architecture, this is just not done...the host that the target UA gets its marching orders from (SIP INVITE, etc.) is not necessarily where the audio stream comes from. It's also not necessarily the same proxy that future SIP messages for that particular session are expected to come from or go to. The RTP media gateway is oftentimes at a completely different IP address. All of this can serve to make the whole scheme very NAT-unfriendly and also makes crafting competent ALGs more tricky than one might assume. So NAT issues can arise even with known-good routers, and my point was not really that we are solving the problem by using good routers, but that we are trying to eliminate the problem at a different level so that we don't have to care 99% of the time what router a customer is using. Reducing the multitude of IP addresses that are involved in a typical SIP session from the destination UA's perspective down to a single IP plays a huge part i n this. Asterisk is a B2BUA in the SIP context not because that's what the authors of Asterisk consciously intended when it came to adding SIP support, but is rather that way by its very nature, because it was written from the ground up to be a technology-agnostic telephone platform, not a SIP-specific platform. Asterisk needs to be able to bridge channels from disparate interfaces and technologoes (TDM to SIP, analog to TDM, etc.). Asterisk treats SIP-to-SIP calls no differently internally than it treats SIP-to-ISDN or analog-to-PRI. The Asterisk core actually has no clue what technologies are behind the two channel legs that it is being asked to bridge together...that all gets abstracted away by the channel drivers. And at its core, Asterisk already knows how to do audio transcoding because it needs to be able to do that in order to fulfill its stated mission, even if it didn't have SIP support at all. In actuality, if all you are dealing with is pure SIP, a B2BUA such as Asterisk i s technically not as efficient from a resources perspective...because it is having to keep track of state
