15 in FL are not that big of a deal. Only 4-5 maybe use the phones significantly. The site is a warehouse mostly so there are people receiving equipment, auditing, testing, packing, and shipping. Most calls by the warehouse staff are internal. The rest are in sales and a moderate phone users.
They are typically in the mid 50-60 ms ping time. I don't know of any other AT&T trunk offering. Been using flowroute in AZ for a while on asterisk which has worked really well. Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Hodgen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:51 PM > To: 'Andrew Cotter'; 'Sipx-users list' > Subject: RE: [sipx-users] One last attempt - AT&T IP Flex > > You may be able to get out of those contracts if they can't > provide the provisioning that you need, and it really is quite simple. > > Sounds like you just need SIP trunks really. There are > several on this list that provide SIP trunks from other > providers that have been certified to work with sipXecs, > which would make life simpler for you, and potentially save > you the cost of additional hardware. > > If your traffic is staying on net with AT&T, I would think > trying some sipx to sipx calls between two locations might be > a good judge of the type of service you will get across those > links. You could run Ping Plotter between two locations as > well to see how much delay runs between them for a good > understanding of the underlying network. > > BTW, the 15 users in Florida would be a concern for me over a > single T-1 unless you are running some compression on those > calls, assuming you run general internet traffic over that > circuit also. > > Does AT&T offer other SIP trunks that are not part of their > IP Perplex, maybe IP non-Flex that is simpler and more configurable? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Cotter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 12:31 PM > To: 'Todd Hodgen'; 'Sipx-users list' > Subject: RE: [sipx-users] One last attempt - AT&T IP Flex > > "BTW, IP FLEX doesn't seem to have much FLEX." - That made > me chuckle! > > Why AT&T? They are providing our internet at all 4 sites. > We have a dozen or so home office types as well, but I am not > concerned with them as of yet. > We are in contract with AT&T, but I have already spoken with > the sales rep that I may want to drop IP Flex at the two > smaller locations where it has not been installed yet. > Fiber at HQ with 60 users > T1 in FL - 15 users > T1 in AZ - 5 users > T1 in IL - 3 users > > No MPLS between sites, but IP Flex is supposed to allow for > on-net calling between sites. This lets AT&T handle the QoS > without the cost to us for MPLS. Not much site-to-site > calling is going on, but some is. > > HQ is the only site I have tried SipX with and it is the most > complex by far. Our datacenter is also at HQ. Network is ok > internally and calls route as expected. Separate VLAN for > our network internally for the phones, Cisco SIP handoff, > Audiocodes MP118, and SipX. > > Would people suggest not getting IP Flex at the smaller > locations and run SIP over IPSEC VPN tunnels between CT and > AZ/IL? Not much QoS on the public internet, but AT&T > circuits on both ends so I might have a better shot with this. > > I can go into more detail if it would help. > > Andrew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Todd Hodgen [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:13 PM > > To: 'Andrew Cotter'; 'Sipx-users list' > > Subject: RE: [sipx-users] One last attempt - AT&T IP Flex > > > > If you could explain your network in more detail, there may > be several > > solutions. > > > > For instance, Is AT&T providing an MPLS network to connect > these sites > > together? Could you use site to site dialing, and then use a > > different provider for the SIP trunks over the MPLS network? > > > > IS there a contractual reason why you have to use AT&T, or is that > > just a preference you have. There are many other providers > that can > > support standard sip. > > > > BTW, IP FLEX doesn't seem to have much FLEX. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew > > Cotter > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 12:06 PM > > To: 'Sipx-users list' > > Subject: [sipx-users] One last attempt - AT&T IP Flex > > > > 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? 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. > > > > > > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ 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/
