[VoiceOps] Kamailio Visions 2030 for Appalachia

For immediate release: HAZARD, Kentucky (1 April 2024)--Evariste Systems LLC, Georgia-based veteran brokers of international charity partnerships, are pleased to announce the conclusion of lengthy trilateral negotiations among Taylor Swift, the Public Investment Fund (the sovereign wealth fund of

Re: [VoiceOps] One Way Audio - Frontier Comm (Los Angeles area)

No, it's true, consider me appropriately humbled. I underappreciated the nuance of this issue. I thought we were talking about something closer to the physicality of networks, not packet inspection/filtering/etc. -- Alex > On 9 Mar 2024, at 08:11, James Cloos wrote: > >> "AB" == Alex

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] One Way Audio - Frontier Comm (Los Angeles area)

> On 8 Mar 2024, at 08:49, Hiers, David wrote: > > Well... yeah, kinda-sometimes maybe. > > If any network device has any code that is SIP/RTP aware, that code can be > poorly configured or make a mistake. Hiding SIP/RTP inside anything else is > one way to avoid being seen by bad configs

Re: [VoiceOps] One Way Audio - Frontier Comm (Los Angeles area)

> On 8 Mar 2024, at 08:44, Mike Hammett wrote: > > In my experience, yes. Well, at least the reliable delivery of my voice > traffic. Whether intentional or mistake (I'm hoping the latter), I've had > random reliability on some major last mile networks. Never a problem when one > of the

Re: [VoiceOps] One Way Audio - Frontier Comm (Los Angeles area)

> On 8 Mar 2024, at 08:32, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps > wrote: > > I don't trust last mile networks to reliably deliver SIP calls. I usually end > up putting them into VPNs, TLS, etc. VPNs and TLS make last-mile networks more reliable? :-) -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant

Re: [VoiceOps] Hotel Phone Requirements

> On 5 Feb 2024, at 11:41, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Anyway, add that to the massive list of why dealing with hotels is a career > onto itself, and I backed out. I expect that would be true of any industry or sector which has a somewhat idiosyncratic usage of telephony, e.g.

Re: [VoiceOps] Hotel Phone Requirements

> On 2 Feb 2024, at 17:45, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps > wrote: > > The desk told me they get less than a handful of calls from rooms in a day. > People pick up their cell phone and call the main number to reach them. While I've never pretended to understand telephony end-users well, this

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

> On 25 Oct 2023, at 15:12, Michael Graves wrote: > > The apparent elegance of a technology can be entrancing. > > To quote the great Leonard Cohen, "We're blinded by the beauty of our > weapons." Indeed. I think that sums up ENUM peering, e164.org , DUNDi federations,

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

> On 24 Oct 2023, at 21:13, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps > wrote: > > The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service > provider? > > Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier > of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

> On 25 Oct 2023, at 11:18, Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps > wrote: > > By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and > covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes > from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) >

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be > maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by > requesting a call to that DID@IP using the website, there may be a nominal > listing fee, in order to maintain the website. > Once in a while an automat

Re: [VoiceOps] SS7 Landscape

Jawaid, > On 17 Oct 2023, at 17:15, Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps > wrote: > > This idea would not be a carrier - it would be a pure tandem, or "exchange > point for SIP", more like how internet exchange points operate. And it would > work across all carriers in the North American Numbering

Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of: 1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week" 2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s" 3) "This is quietly happening for years now

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

jurisdiction because the LD switch was in a nearby state? Oh boy, VoIP makes things fun, doesn't it?)I'm sure as always, how you stand depends on where you sit. On Sep 20, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps wrote: And still, I wonder. You call my company, my menu says "your cal

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

ous reasons. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henning >> >> -- >> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ >> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Alex >>>

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

ne in AZ (single party) calls a person in CA (all party)?  Further, what if the server is in AZ, but the caller is in an all party state, and they call a single party state?  Etc. On Sep 20, 2023 at 2:16:02 AM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:> Under US law, if the

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

(all party)? Further, > what if the server is in AZ, but the caller is in an all party state, and > they call a single party state? Etc. > > > On Sep 20, 2023 at 2:16:02 AM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps > wrote: >> Under US law, if the recording was obtained lawfully (

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

challenges.   On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:05 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote: Does your company provide anything of interests to addicts, or anyone with a compulsive habit they are trying to kick? (e.g. compulsive shopping for new VoIP handsets) > On Sep 19

Re: [VoiceOps] Request to block number?

Does your company provide anything of interests to addicts, or anyone with a compulsive habit they are trying to kick? (e.g. compulsive shopping for new VoIP handsets) > On Sep 19, 2023, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Aloi via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Hey All, > > I have a new one. > > We (hosted

Re: [VoiceOps] A2P-aaS

e to > force-kill it every night. > > > On Sep 7, 2023 at 1:31:16 PM, Alex Balashov via VoiceOps > wrote: >> I have a purely internal portal application that is used to send SMS >> notifications about customer monitoring incidents and emergencies about... >>

Re: [VoiceOps] A2P-aaS

a 30 day trial and then it's like $1.99 per device > one time payment. Totally worth it. > > Jorge > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps > wrote: > I have a purely internal portal application that is used to send SMS > notifications abo

[VoiceOps] A2P-aaS

I have a purely internal portal application that is used to send SMS notifications about customer monitoring incidents and emergencies about... twice a month. Maybe 5-10 messages per month total, across several associates combined. It's all done through Twilio's SMS API. There is not enough

Re: [VoiceOps] No-commit international calling

Blimey. International fraud really has got that bad, then!I'd also be interested in a very low-volume personal solution. I'll bet I'm not the only one. The natural solution is for someone running a retail SIP provider on the list who has good international routes to offer accounts to established

Re: [VoiceOps] All carriers must get their STIR/SHAKEN certificate by June 30th!

I once again hate to press this point further, but what exactly is meant by "your customer uses" and "another party"? I don't mean this from a place of needless pedantry: there's a legitimate question here around what the limits of this concept are. Does the customer have to be human, and do

Re: [VoiceOps] All carriers must get their STIR/SHAKEN certificate by June 30th!

> On May 31, 2023, at 3:45 PM, Mary Lou Carey wrote: > > Any carrier that provides originating VOIP or a combination of originating > VOIP / PSTN / Wireless VOICE services needs to get its own certificate I hate to press this point further, but must: what exactly are originating VoIP

Re: [VoiceOps] All carriers must get their STIR/SHAKEN certificate by June 30th!

Hi Mary Lou, Thank you for this. A stupid - and certainly belated - question: how exactly is a carrier defined, in the letter of the regulations underlying this deadline? Or to put it another way: who, as a VoIP service provider of one sort or another, _doesn't_ have to get their own token?

Re: [VoiceOps] Local Calling Jurisdiction

CCMI's QTEL product is the real answer: https://www.ccmi.com/solutions/network-planning/ If you truly want local calling areas from tariffs. You will be charged according to the size of your dreams and the altitude of your aspirations. -- Alex > On May 9, 2023, at 3:46 PM, Peter Beckman via

Re: [VoiceOps] Germany unsure about whether Kamailio will survive next winter

AM, Markus via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Saw the conference. It's all over the news here right now. > > Tough times ahead. Good luck to us. > > Greetings from Germany. > > > :-D > >> Am 01.04.2023 um 10:24 schrieb Alex Balashov via VoiceOps: >> For

[VoiceOps] Germany unsure about whether Kamailio will survive next winter

For immediate release: ATLANTA, GA (1 April 2023)--The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy of Germany was forced to disclose today that it has been tasked with assessing whether Germany will be able to operate its Kamailio through the next winter. This initiative comes amidst

Re: [VoiceOps] TF number ported out/re-assigned without authorization

I’m not a lawyer nor a legal strategist, but I see few downsides in going to war for it. At the very least, the matter will go to the general counsel and maybe get some actual attention. — Alex > On Mar 23, 2023, at 2:47 AM, Paul Timmins via VoiceOps > wrote: > > I can’t imagine why the new

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: Passing the Voiceops torch

Incidentally: as an elementary school-aged child, I learned Linux/UNIX thanks to Jared's public Linux server at nether.net . I had an MS-DOS PC at home and no Internet access, but used the computers at the university library for a few hours a day. Nether.net

Re: [VoiceOps] Numbers listed as spam by Hiya

> On Aug 25, 2022, at 6:38 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Well one is run by CTIA so presumably official. Okay, but then why is there a competing mafia of unofficial ones? How many entities do I have sign up for because I’ve got some nice caller IDs over here, would be a

Re: [VoiceOps] Numbers listed as spam by Hiya

> On Aug 25, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps > wrote: > > That feels so much like a mafia extortion plan. Pay us to not screw you over. Seriously. How are we even supposed to know about these registries, if not for this list? What makes them in any sense official? Nothing? Who

Re: [VoiceOps] [External] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

> On Jul 19, 2022, at 6:30 PM, Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps > wrote: > > I think you need to think of it in terms of it being like 911. "Do I want to > chance getting sued and possibly put out of business because of that one > person who killed themselves after they tried dialing 988 and

Re: [VoiceOps] Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Indeed. The default destination of a reply should be the list, which is accomplished by the following Mailman config options: from_is_list = 0 reply_goes_to_list = 1 — Alex > On Jul 19, 2022, at 7:29 PM, Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps > wrote: > > If I do a reply on this list, it always

Re: [VoiceOps] [External] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

> On Jul 19, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Hunter Fuller wrote: > > All anyone can tell me on this list is "because there is no point," > "because it is antiquated," etc. - but the proposed alternative would > literally cost my organization time and therefore money to accomplish, > and provide an arguably

Re: [VoiceOps] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

> On Jul 18, 2022, at 9:26 PM, Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps > wrote: > > (Aside from "it was initially done for a reason that is no longer > relevant" - that does not hold water to me because phone numbers > themselves exist for the same reason. If we invented VoIP today, > everyone would use

Re: [VoiceOps] Five9 Issues / DDoS?

That said, lots of folks are being attacked. If another domino falls, this should not come as a shock. > On Sep 27, 2021, at 6:28 PM, Darren via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Five9’s uses bandwidth.com to provide some of their services. Lookup the > phone numbers that are having issues on inbound

Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down

> On Sep 27, 2021, at 6:04 PM, Aryn Nakaoka 808.356.2901 > wrote: > > How do cell phone companies port instantly? I can walk into Verizon and they > can port my Tmobile number to them. Or are they all sharing a back end? It’s got to be something like that. Whatever it is, VoIP ITSPs don’t

Re: [VoiceOps] thinQ is making hay while Bandwidth is down

No, nobody can “flash-port” numbers to a different LRN like that. Anyone who claims this has a bridge to sell you. This capability is indeed limited to SMS/800. > On Sep 27, 2021, at 5:47 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: > > It would be interesting if they could do DID re-routing quickly -- Alex

Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth - Monday Outage

My experience of this in connection with various customers is that it’s just UDP fragments. Doesn’t appear to let up in response to a lack of stimuli (i.e. blocking ICMP unreachable responses from going back out doesn’t help), and doesn’t seem aimed at SIP / RTP services specifically in any

Re: [VoiceOps] Ray Baum's act and all-softphone deployments

it be sufficient to say that > they are near the AP on the third floor southwest corner? The letter of the > law seems to say "no." > > > >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:40 PM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps >> wrote: >> I wonder if doing GeoIP via a commercial databas

Re: [VoiceOps] Ray Baum's act and all-softphone deployments

> On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:28 PM, Aryn Nakaoka 808.356.2901 via VoiceOps > wrote: > > Not only that but we need to share liability with internet connectivity... > cell phone guys are vertically integrated. Boy howdy do we. And probably not just for the connection’s reliability, but other

Re: [VoiceOps] Ray Baum's act and all-softphone deployments

I wonder if doing GeoIP via a commercial database like MaxMind—and we all know how perfect a location mechanism that is—could be construed as a sufficient “best effort” in this case. > On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:28 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: > > Ours doesn't, but that's a good idea to share with

Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth - Monday Outage

This same pattern of DDoS has been affecting numerous folks in the industry besides voip.ms, so it’s not surprising that it’s moved up the food chain. But I am hopeful that also means there are more resources to stop it higher up the food chain. > On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Ryan Delgrosso

Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth East Coast Issues

Minor and unrelated semantic quibble: “SIP reinvite” is not synonymous with “media path handoff” or “not anchoring the RTP through my network”, though it’s often improperly used that way in the industry. A re-INVITE is just an INVITE message inside of a SIP dialog, rather than outside of one

Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP Provider DDoSes

It’s pretty bad out there. voip.ms are definitely not the only ones being hit. I’ve got a customer that’s been getting hit for a week, though seemingly no ransom demand and may not be the same outfit. > On Sep 26, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I sent this to NANOG recently, not