On 8/2/2010 7:59 AM, Tony Graziano wrote: > Not necessarily. Voip.ms requires the registration to be there in order > to actually send calls out anyway. No, you can use a sip uri. Which looks like it would be better for a HA setup as it would use DNS.
> So yes, you'll get calls, but sending > calls would be problematic wouldn't it? No, the registration part is still there for sending. > > Which server has the sipXbridge role assigned to it? If you have "two" > servers both with sipXbridge assigned, they should each register as > different accounts (account/subaccount) with the provider. Yes, but you can only assign a DID to one account from what I see. > > If they are in the same geographic location using ONE Internet provider, > the easier way to have the firewall setup would be with multiple public > IP addresses pointing to their respective proxy. If one sipxecs server > with sipxbridge role enabled fails, then voip.ms <http://voip.ms> would > need to be instructed how to have the failed or "missing" registration > failover to the sub-account (which they can do) and thusly point them at > the secondary sipxbridge installation, etc., so both inbound and > outbound would work. Sounds exactly what I was thinking but using a SIP uri for the DID you would not need voip.ms do anything special as the registration failover doesn't appear to be a standard feature in their interface. -- Regards -------------------------------------- Gerald Drouillard Technology Architect Drouillard & Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.biz _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
