Yup realized right after I clicked send. Oh well. (can't we all just get along?)
On 12/29/2011 8:54 PM, Matthew Kitchin (usenet/public) wrote: > Your post went to the list... > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Harper<[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:36 > To:<[email protected]>; Discussion list for users of sipXecs > software<[email protected]> > Reply-To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication > > Off list (so as not to piss anyone off)... you are so right about how > people are treated on this list. One of the reasons I stopped posting > here and recommending sipx to customers. The other being the random > dropped calls issue from two years ago, I follow the list only to see if > the problem has been fixed. Neither have IMHO. > > I hope it all works for you, and by the way I knew what you meant as > soon as I read it. > > On 12/29/2011 8:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Sigh what? Mike, read about PRI - >> Sigh... because you took the time to agree with Tony, giving me grief while >> at the same time pointing out that you were not doing that. Of course you >> were. Since Tony had already made his point, why did you need to bring it up >> again? >> >> You then post a separate reply to the original question when just before >> that, you told me you didn't know what I was talking about. >> >> Sigh because as soon as I point out the obvious such as I am now having to >> do, a few of you must at all costs have fun with this, turning the persons >> post into garbage making points like 'we need to understand'. Does someone >> else feel the need still? >> >> Of course you know what I was asking about, I've seen plenty of people >> talking about virtual PRI's. Who the heck would not know that a VPRI might >> simply be an abbreviation. Doesn't seem to be at the moment but give it time >> maybe :). >> >> Bottom line is that there are a few old timers on this list that seem to >> feel the need to be hard nosed to people. Why? Maybe a few of the users are >> simply too freaking serious for no good reason. Give it a rest. There is no >> reason to be like that with ANYONE on this list. >> No one makes you reply to anything, you don't have to. If you don't like how >> someone posts something, it's not your place to be the teacher or know it >> all and tell them how they need to learn everything about VoIP before ever >> taking the chance of using the wrong term while asking a question. God >> forbid! >> >>> That's all I'm saying, and I think that is >>> what Tony was asking - what is it exactly. >> A virtual PRI is really just a billing method for a SIP trunk. Figured >> pretty much anyone on this list would know that. >> The question really was, how do I set up sipx so that I can use IP >> authentication to the ITSP over user/password. >> >> Anyways, moving on... >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:08 PM >>> To: sipx-users >>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication >>> >>> <sigh> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:55:11 -0800, Todd Hodgen wrote: >>>> Yes, but what is a virtual PRI? Since PRI is an ISDN standard, what is >>> the >>>> non-standard derivative that comes out of a Virtual PRI? What is it >>>> exactly? >>>> >>>> Is it maybe a PRI that is fed out of device that is actually fed via a T1 >>>> with SIP trunks on it? If it is, its still a PRI, conforming to the PRI >>>> standards, as it should. >>>> >>>> I believe what you are referring to is some companies marketing name >>>> they use for a service they provide. I don't think anyone is giving >>>> you grief, we just have no idea what you are talking about since we >>>> haven't had the pleasure of reading the material you have, and really >>>> haven't a clue what this VPRI is. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> [email protected] >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:02 PM >>>> To: sipx-users >>>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication >>>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:20:57 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: >>>>> I dont know VPRI means. If you use terms noone but you might >>>>> understand you might explain it a bit. Throwing that aside... >>>>> >>>> When I don't use the right terms, I get grief and when I use the terms >>>> I'm seeing in docs, I still get grief :). >>>> I would have called it Virtual PRI but flowroute itself seems to call >>>> it VPRI for short. >>>> >>>>> flowroute is a two-edged sword: Use the bandwidth.com template and >>>>> change the bandwidth.com gateway stuff to your flowroute gateway. >>>>> make sure flowroute is swet to send to your ip address and port 5080. >>>>> Very >>>> simple. >>>> >>>> I'll take a look at this. >>>> >>>>> If you use dual wan with flowroute you may have issues if you route >>>>> netblocks or providers via specific wan ports. >>>>> >>>> Flowroute will be the only gateway these sipx servers will know and have. >>>> >>>>> flowroute does not control >>>>> the majority of their network and hence, RTP does not come from the >>>>> same IP as the gateway. You pretty much have to open everything to >>>>> use flowroute if you had been in locked down mode. >>>>> >>>> I didn't know this about them and to date, have always used an IP >>>> allow rule for them. >>>> Guess I've been lucky, haven't heard of any missed calls. >>>> >>>> These servers won't have any remote users but I wanted to have a bit >>>> of security in place so figured I would block all but >>>> sip.flowroute.com. Now I seem to have a new problem. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM, [email protected] >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I need to install 4 separate sipx systems in four separate locations. >>>>>> No interoffice communications. >>>>> All of the sipx systems could benefit from the use of a VPRI rather >>>>> than traditional. >>>>> >>>>> I use ITSP's for individual lines when we need an area code that our >>>>> local telco cannot handle. >>>>> On sipx, I usually just create an ITSP device in the gateway section >>>>> and let it authenticate via user name/password. >>>>> >>>>> In this case, due to the number of lines per server (4 to 8), it >>>>> doesn't seem like a good idea to authenticate each and every DID >>>>> individually for example and would prefer using an IP based >>>>> authentication for the whole server. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'll be using flowroute for the systems but am not sure how to >>>>>> configure sipx to authenticate once based on IP over a user >>>>>> name/password. I don't see anything which would allow me to do this >>>>>> in the Gateway configuration section. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can someone shed some light on this please. >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks very much. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
