Could this thread please stay on one list ? Martin I can understand that you find your mesages important but crossposting is really annoying.
Tony Graziano schrieb: > I don't think its a qualifier as much a differentiator but it may not factor > to everyone. > ============================ > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > Fax: 434.984.8431 > > Email: [email protected] > > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > Fax: 434.984.8427 > > Helpdesk Contract Customers: > http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > <[email protected]>; sipXecs developer discussions > <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri Sep 10 15:40:03 2010 > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] ITSPs that work with sipXecs > > In terms of the qualifying factors Tony has listed to differentiate > among ITSPs, I would add whether or not they support TLS encryption as a > factor. > > > > Don McIlvin > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony > Graziano > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:17 PM > To: sipXecs developer discussions > Cc: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] [sipx-dev] ITSPs that work with sipXecs > > > > I question some of the ITSP's in the list. AT&T doesn't work with remote > users because they only send to port 5060. AT&T has different products, > and I know one of them doesnt work, and I know there is work being done > in sipxbridge to resolve having both services use port 5060, but its not > done yet. > > > > I used bandtel a long time ago, but they really spun me around for a > while. I had 80 trouble tickets in 200 days. I would certainly question > Skype, as that is really on again/off again and don;t know if that is > "really" functional for a business with multiple DID numbers. > > > > I may have to add an Australian carrier as well as one in Mexico City. > > > > There ought to be a checklist and form. For instance, sipgate.de works, > but you can't take a call off hold with them. So a "functionality" check > for certain call sequences and "how they route (invite or to header, > etc.)" ought to be provided for a template. > > > > Type of authentication/Registration > > MOH /hold & resume > > NAT Traversal > > call transfer sequence checklist > > > > Does one of these exist? > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Todd Hodgen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Martin, > > > > I had provided the provisioning information for Broadvox some time ago. > I'm happy to provide it again, as they do work well with sipXecs. > > > > I'm curious about the Cbeyond interoperability. Cbeyond will only > install on PBX products they have certified, and they claim they don't > have certification for sipXecs. If anyone has a system running with > Cbeyond, I'd be interested in knowing, it's a real pain in my side > today. Just knowing a system is out there working would help > considerably in getting this resolved with Cbeyond. > > > > Todd > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Steinmann > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:55 AM > To: 'sipXecs developer discussions'; 'Discussion list for users of > sipXecs software' > Subject: [sipx-dev] ITSPs that work with sipXecs > > > > We have this list of ITSPs on the SIPfoundry Web site and we have ITSP > templates for these in sipXecs (except broadvox). Can anyone confirm > that they work, or report issues that would lead us to take them off the > list? Are there other ones we are missing where we have good evidence > that they work and therefore we should add them? Peatec anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
