Sounds fun to me, when and where? On Jan 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, "Nathaniel Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmm…sounds like the beginnings of an actual sipXecs users group meeting – in > the real world – scary thought… > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:47 PM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] OpenSBC > > > > That's funny. I'm there with customers regularly, and I don't turn down free > beer! > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Burleigh, Matt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > “And hence the need for a really smart SBC for remote user traversal, because > you will not have access to every firewall where they are. “ > > > > Any recommendations? > > > > “You are assuming that the ITSP's are capable of talking to sipxbridge. This > is another VERY good reason to use an independent sbc. “ > > > > We have been using/testing a SipX 4.1.7 for almost a year now with one ITSP > (MyDivert.com) and it is working so far. We have recently started a new 4.2.1 > installation we are configuring for production and so far have not had any > NAT traversal issues but I do understand we have not tested all the possible > scenarios, nor could we possibly ever do that before putting it in > production. Though, I’d like to try to cover as many bases as possible. > > > > > > Thanks again! (I noticed that your located in Charlottesvile and I’m > Fredericksburg, maybe I could buy you a beer and pick your brain some more???) > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:26 PM > > > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] OpenSBC > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Burleigh, Matt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > “When you use an SBC that does smart nat traversal methods (if they have sip > alg or Stateful packet inspection on) or if they have a integrated device it > might not leave the option to turn onn these functions, how useful will it be > to you?” > > > > And that’s why I thought I would be only using Bria where I can provision > “Firewall Traversal” method to be OFF (or Bria Iphone with firewall traversal > options off) and let SipXbridge handle the NAT traversal issues. > > It doesn't work that way. > > > > So a smarter SBC, like OpenSBC, would support more NAT traversal scenarios? > If this is so, then I need to start learning a lot more about OpenSBC and > SipX. > > Not all SBC's are the same. > > > > My user base is pretty small, less than 10 would be globally roaming and need > this type of connectivity. > > And hence the need for a really smart SBC for remote user traversal, because > you will not have access to every firewall where they are. > > > > No site to site VPNs. Instead we’re simply using ITSPs to provide DID’s for > our customers in other countries and so that it’s a “local” call for the > customers. > > You are assuming that the ITSP's are capable of talking to sipxbridge. This > is another VERY good reason to use an independent sbc. > > > > Thanks again! > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:13 PM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > > > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] OpenSBC > > > > You might get more input if you start another thread. > > > > I've done this before. Trunks on other continents, site-to-site vpn's with > analog gateways on other continents, remote users wherever. > > > > It's not a reflection on pfSense, but if you want to support remote "mobile" > workers and/or a lot of remote users, you need a different SBC device than > sipxbridge. > > > > Yes, it will work. Yes it will traverse NAT (to a point). > > > > What it wont do is traverse NAT in anything other than a basic way, which > means you need to reconfigure the remote firewalls of just about every user, > to get it to work for them. When you use an SBC that does smart nat traversal > methods (if they have sip alg or Stateful packet inspection on) or if they > have a integrated device it might not leave the option to turn onn these > functions, how useful will it be to you? > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Burleigh, Matt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am planning a Pfsense/SipX deployment with both roaming/global remote > workers(Bria Pro/Bria Iphone) and ITSP (DID’s in other countries) > connectivity. > > > > Sorry to hijack this thread, but I am not sure I understand the need for > OpenSBC or any external SBC with SipX. SipXbridge already handles the NAT > traversal issue and is an “SBC” of sorts. I guess I don’t if it’s a complete > “SBC” implementation or not… > > > > Are there security issues for allowing “port forwared” connections directly > to SipXbridge? > > > > I think I’ve read a thread discussing using OpenSBC to modify the SIP > messages and not sure why that is needed? Any examples? > > > > Thanks! > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Picher > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:07 AM > To: [email protected]; Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] OpenSBC > > > > two thumbs up for OpenSBC on pfSense! > > freeswitch is already available on pfSense, how hard can it be Joegen :-) > > i'm sure you're not busy doing anything else... hahahaha... > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you feel that integration would do the sipX project any good, > > feel free to voice out your opinion. > > I'm not high level enough in this to have any input on the topic. I don't > know if that would or would not be a good idea in terms of 'integrating'. > I personally like to see things in modular form, not all tied into one single > bundle but tied together so that they work very well together, as individual, > stand alone 'modules'. > > I loved using OpenSBC but was never able to resolve the glemlins we suffered. > I still believe it was because of my lack of understanding Vyatta so had to > move to pfsense. What I can tell you is how badly I would love to see OpenSBC > on pfsense though :). Or, even as a safe, secure centos/firewall only setup. > > Mike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and > those who don't. > > [email protected] > blog: http://www.sipxecs.info > call: sip:[email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > > -- > ====================== > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > sip: [email protected] > Fax: 434.326.5325 > > Email: [email protected] > > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > sip: [email protected] > > Helpdesk Contract Customers: > http://support.myitdepartment.net > > > > Blog: > > http://blog.myitdepartment.net > > > > Linked-In Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > > -- > ====================== > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > sip: [email protected] > Fax: 434.326.5325 > > Email: [email protected] > > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > sip: [email protected] > > Helpdesk Contract Customers: > http://support.myitdepartment.net > > > > Blog: > > http://blog.myitdepartment.net > > > > Linked-In Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > > > > -- > ====================== > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > sip: [email protected] > Fax: 434.326.5325 > > Email: [email protected] > > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > sip: [email protected] > > Helpdesk Contract Customers: > http://support.myitdepartment.net > > > > Blog: > > http://blog.myitdepartment.net > > > > Linked-In Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4 > > > > > This message and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the > individual(s) or entity named. If you are not the intended individual(s) or > entity named you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or reliance upon its contents is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this in error, please notify the sender, delete the original, > and destroy all copies. Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure > or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Garrett County > Government therefore does not accept any liability for any errors or > omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email > transmission. > > > Garrett County Government, > 203 South Fourth Street, Courthouse, Oakland, Maryland 21550 > www.garrettcounty.org > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
