IMHO - A phone system is more critical than email for conducting business. If your Internet connection goes down, either your Email goes down (is inaccessible) or fails to update. At the same time, if your phone system were IP based and hosted elsewhere, it might be impossible to call downstairs making internal communications a "sneakernet" and can backfire in the biggest way. I am of the mind this should not be a hosted service for almost any size enterprise unless it is a very small organization that can yell at each other from across the room if the phones go down. We never put a system in without a FXO gateway, and can at least direct a main phone number to it in the event of an outage with the ITSP. We also prefer to send 911 calls via the FXO gateway, thinking if there is an emergency of a natural kind and the UPS's are working (POE switches, sipx/gateway), panic calls can be made from any phone. While there are ways to have phones use an alternate gateway for 911, etc., those gateways must be local and accessible. Our customers thus far have expressed wanting a system to be available internally even if TELCO or ITSP service were not available for some reason. Tony
>>> "Simon Stockdale" <[email protected]> 09/04/09 5:39 AM >>> Keith, The "companies" feature is part of the issue. Additionally though in our consultancy business we are seeing more and more blue chips refusing to deploy physical boxes and authorizing only VM based deployments - either Solaris 10 on containers or VMWare (linux and windows). I agree with the idea of a sipx-vm list as this topic is pretty specific so would justify a new list. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Keith Gearty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 September 2009 10:22 To: Simon Stockdale Cc: 'Tony Graziano'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare Simon Stockdale wrote: >The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is simply that I would like to >deploy sipx to support more than one customer. Our options at present are >either modify sipxconfig code to provide some grouping of users to specific >companies or deploy multiple instances of SIPX. > If this is the main reason why implementers would want to deploy SipX on a VM, then surely adding the ability to group users by "company" (as you suggested above) would be a far better approach. If we are going to have continued list discussion relating to VMs, I think it would be better to create a separate list for such a discussion. For example, call it "sipx-vm". Otherwise, the sipx-users list will quickly become swamped. Just my 2 cents. Keith. </[email protected]> _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
