On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Andrew Cotter <[email protected]> wrote: > So I have finally gotten word from AT&T labs that they will not be able to > support SipX and fix our transfer issue. > > We have a SIP handoff that is direct (switch in the middle) from their Cisco > router onsite. I asked for them to send signaling on port 5080 (sipXbridge) > but that was a no go. Then I asked if they can do some sort of NAT > translation for incoming data from their end, through the router, and into > port 5080. Again, no go as they tested this in the labs. B2BUA on the > Cisco, nope. > > So... I am left with probably having to leave my sipX setup, that I have > come to know and love, behind. > > A final question for the masses: > > Would having AT&T swap out the SIP handoff for a PRI handoff potentially fix > my transfer issues if I put a gateway in? Yes. I use patton PRI gateways with very good results. >If this would work and I can > convince AT&T to convert the SIP handoff to a PRI handoff, what solution > would you suggest (patton, audiocodes, etc.) to handle a single PRI. I have > 4 sites spread throughout the US and would need something fairly cost > effective for 2 of them since there are 5 or less employees at those sites. > I am sure I will have more questions if people come back saying this might > resolve the issues. We sell and install Ingate products for people, and they seem to do well, but.. there is a caveat or two.
It's best to have your traffic flowing through two separate interfaces on an SBC. So will AT&T handoff to you on an IP network that is different than your sipx installation? > > > Parting thoughts. > In light of the position I am now in I am forced to begin to look elsewhere > at commercial products. I wanted to share my thoughts on the comparison of > sipx and a well known commercial product out there. After getting a demo of > one solution that the salesperson was touting as an extremely easy > interface, so simple a cave man can set it up, I was amazed at how much I > was left desiring the simplicity of SipX. The screens were cluttered, the > interface was fairly well organized, but the voicemail and admin console > still resided on a windows machine. Not what I want. > > Yes it was a nice system in terms of failover and distribution, but they > pretty much insist that we swap out our phones (polycom) for their own > phones. Also, for a VoIP system they almost left me speechless when they > said I could only use one SIP trunk provider unless I bought an InGate. > VoIP... SIP... Won't support it? Wow! Don't even get me started on the > Windows application or the Outlook piece that I repeatedly told them we > would not be using. > > Thank you again for everyone's help and suggestions over the past month in > trying to make this work. If I can slip in a plug for the project during my > talk at the Computerworld OSBC later this week I will. > > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > -- ====================== 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/ Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec. _______________________________________________ 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/
