Sonme other comments below. The good thing is that with moh it worked internally, and with our patton gateways too. The more problematic thing is that since most of our calls our via siptrunk via ingates, moh stopped working (ingate has a setting for this and it works now) to incoming calls, seeing a SIP 2.0 501 Not Implemented message. We decclined to do call traces as we felt the firmware was "not ready for prime time" yet, though i am glad to set some time aside and do so when it becomes helpful the the community. In each ITSP case (Bandtel) hold and resume broke audio before and after, the firmware, so there's more work they would need to do in order to fix this. With bandwidth.com when 3.1 was applied it broke the MOH that was working for external calls (got 501 not implemented), but hold/resume did not break audio when resuming. We also got the impression the template was "off" and see this if a phone gets mismatched configuration files. We use a working demo of the Polycom applications (weather, stock, news headlines) that scroll the idle display of the microbrowse. After 3.1 was applied the left margin was too close to the leftmost edge, and we saw some other minor display margin and alignment issues. We would see this in version 1.6 or 2.0 if the phone was getting mismatched files too, so felt the cosmetic issue was likely caused by this as we've gone through this with polycom support before. Our biggest concern was that if the EFK keys or enhanced BLF was not going to work on 3.10.2 or 3.10.3(4) it should not be offered and should wait for 4.0. I suspect the RLS server doesn't understand how to interpret some of the new dialogue sequences from the phone and am wondering if a template fix is going to properly cure it. If I can offer any more insight, please let me know. >>> "Paul Mossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/24/08 04:34PM >>>
Tony Graziano wrote: > In trialing firmware version 3.1 with sipx 3.10.2, I noticed > some undesired behavior with BLF. While there were some > display oddities, probably due to mismatched template files, > etc., the larger functional and non-cosmetic issue had to do with BLF. > > It was interesting to see the enhanced BLF from Polycom > (watched BLF line rings, and pickup softkey is presented to > user). Note that the "Pickup" softkey requires configuration which is not present in 3.10.2. It has already been added to 4.0. As you already alluded to, the plan is to backport this into 3.10.3 also. This configuration also allows you to execute the pickup by pressing the "ringing" BLF key, which is also very nice. Unfortunately, you will find that a ringing Polycom with 3.1.0 firmware cannot be picked up (XTRN-231), not with a phone key, nor with the *78<Extension>. Polycom is aware of the problem. > What also happened was after a couple of hours BLF > broke and maintained a "BUSY" indication when the line was > not or NOT BUSY status when the line actually was. When the > BUSY was showing, pickup option were also not presented. I'd like to hear more about this first. You are seeing this on 501s and/or 601s right? **No, on 650's. Do you find that the BLF indications are delayed by 4 seconds? Or, are they consistently inaccurate for a longer period of time? **Consistently inaccurate for long periods, as in 12-36 hours on a network with no calls coming on or out (weekend). Wait 12 hours, reboot the phones and sipx, still no change 12 hours later, etc. Do you have any LG-Nortel 68xx sets? If so, then you will experience XTRN-228 and XTRN-195. These will definitely cause BLF problems. ** I haven't gone there yet. Are you BLF monitoring any other type of UACs? ** Briefly tried with the AdvaTel console, we're still waiting for the key to unlock the RLS function. Unloaded the app and are waiting for them to get back to us. You will likely also find that BLF monitored Park Orbits do not go back to "idle" when the a call is unparked (XECS-1668.) ** When everything else stopped, we didn't try anything along those lines. Also, can you check the "Firmware Version" and "BLF - Subscription URL" values of your profile? (They should be default, and "2.0" respectively.) ** They are. Thanks. -Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
