This is the way we configure it as well. The parent domain is managed by corporate DNS servers, which delegate a sub domain to the sipXecs/openUC config server to manage.
We have other servers in the sipXecs domain though, which has made managing DNS more difficult than it needs to be. I know we can manually edit the cfengine files in order to have the best of both worlds - sipXecs managed DNS and custom records. But, would it nice if these extra records could be managed in the user interface. Does anybody know if webmin has a cfengine plugin which is compatible with the 4.5.2 design? Dave. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:08 AM To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Unmanaged services plan for 4.6 Yes, good point (same point was made by Geoff). It means using a special voice subdomain, but it does make life easier. I prefer to use the main company domain because [email protected] looks better than [email protected] but normally you don't use the domain name anyhow because most people stick to numbers or contact lists or directory searches. Paul "McIlvin, Don" <[email protected]> wrote on 25-05-2012 17:51:28: > So comments marked DM>> where 3 options are discussed. > From: [email protected] [mailto:sipx-users- <mailto:sipx-users-> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 7:24 AM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Unmanaged services plan for 4.6 > > Douglas Hubler <[email protected]> wrote on 25-05-2012 11:01:14: > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> then we should make sure webmin works. Did you typically install > > >> webmin on sipxecs systems before or just thinking ahead? > > > > > > I think it is important that there is at least also a UC interface where > > > the important things for the UC system can be set. Like certain DHCP > > > options. > > > > yes, agree. > > > > >> The DNS doesn't have to be the same that your entire company uses. I > > >> cannot find a good reason not to run the DNS. > > > > > > IP address management is a reason why the "company DNS" should at least > > > reflect > > > the A records of IP addresses that are used. > > > > yes, a common setup is to copy records (A or SRV) records from the > > sipxecs system for SIP and IM to your company DNS server. sipxecs > > maintains it's own DNS because "everything is a DNS issue" and sipxecs > > breaks horribly all the time when we rely on company DNS server to be > > correct. In addition the number of records we require now for a HA > > system has exploded because a lot more services are HA now. If before > > copying the "RR" records was problematic, now it's 10x worse. The > > silly thing is that these records were only used internally by sipxecs > > so why make admins go thru the torture. Funny thing is this hasn't > > changed much from 4.4, but it wasn't clear before that this is > > actually what happened. > > So we have 2 usertypes: > - the UC client devices, these are mainly hardphones and softphones on any OS. > These need access to the SIP SRV records etc. > Since the world is moving more and more to software I think in > bigger installations > these should run from the "company DNS". > - the UC servers, these need a separate set of DNS records, only > used between them. > These can be provided by the "UC DNS". > > There are then 3 options: > > DM>> There may be a 2b) > > 1) Use UC DNS for servers and UC clients, this would mean that the > UC clients only need the standard > UC records or there is a forwarding to the company DNS. There also > has to be a (DHCP) way to point the UC > clients to the UC DNS instead of the company DNS if it's not the same. > 2) Use UC DNS for the servers and the company DNS for the clients, > this means putting the > necessary records in the company DNS. All records are available on > the UC servers as well. > This is the safest I think because the client records are available > everywhere. No changes on DHCP. > DM>> 2b)Where Clients use company DNS servers to request resolution > of the SIP Domain name, but company DNS servers only forward > resolution of SIP to UC Servers. > DM>> No actual records per se in company DNS. > DM>> Administration of Bind capabilities like Views to manage > traffic flow on a large network, and load balancing is contained > within UC servers. > DM>> All named references to gateways are self contained within UC > servers as well. > DM>> Also ensures a regional proxy server can be set to use its own > local resources and not that of another regional proxy > (topologically far way). > > 3) Use company DNS for all, meaning entering all records in the company DNS. > This requires special skills and time, but would work OK. > > Do you want all 3 options? > 1) Is a good option if the UC DNS&DHCP is the main DNS/DHCP, webmin > would be nice then as well. > If there is another company DNS&DHCP then 2) can be used (if wanted > in combination with 1)) > I am now using option 3), this would be more for the bigger > organisations were everything has > to be controlled centrally. In the future I might swap to 2) to make > sure the server part is OK. > 1) is not an option because we have a high available fully managed > IP address management solution > in place for all clients (UC or not UC). > > > _______________________________________________ > > sipx-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ <http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/> > "The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's > confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended > solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail > message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended > recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken > or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful." > "The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free > of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. > This message and its attachments could have been infected during > transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, > the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and > remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's > employer is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way > from this message or its attachments." > "In connection with representing sellers and/or buyers in real > estate transactions, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage real > estate sales associates have absolutely no authority to create > binding contractual obligations on behalf of a seller or on behalf > of a buyer via any written or verbal communications including, but > not limited to email communications." [v1.0.07.109] > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ <http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/>
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
