Vodia PBX

No, 2.1.5 is no difference regarding the performance. My opinion is that hardware has become so cheap today that it is not worth having customers complaining about dropouts. So I would definitevely power up another server. The new domain backup feature comes in handy. It should be relatively simple to move a few domains off to a new server!

Do NOT use STUN. Do NOT use STUN. Do NOT use STUN. Do NOT use STUN. Do NOT use STUN. Do NOT use STUN.

Oh you mean, a number so that you get directly to the dial by name? Interesting thought... I think at the moment there is always some DTMF interaction neccessary.

Currently only MakeCall and ClearCall... Only HTTP/HTTPS. Not much, but a start.

Looks like a log from the Polycom phone to me?

Well, in that case you would match the first 11 digits: Pattern: ([0-9]{11})[0-9]*@.* Replacement: (left empty) Or if you want to match the front part as well: Pattern: (1800[0-9]{7})[0-9]*@.* Replacement: (left empty)

The difference is that the register registers while the gateway does not. That means that only the register trunk can have an account name, which is used for authentication purposes.

Well, the other thing is maybe the domain name in the from header. I can understand that they would not like "localhost", maybe you should rename the primary domain alias to something that they expect...

That is not even a RFC-compliant packet. Not even talking about RFC3581 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3581.txt, August 2003), which is not set to the actual port. The content-length is not set.

Maybe we should come up with a use case list, and sort it by importance. I don't think that we can come up with a generic "solves all" solution, so lets take it from the user/admin perspective.

The whole ERE thing starts at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2915.txt, which is the base for ENUM. That ERE subset should be pretty complete. But I agree, we need to provide more examples for ERE. There are all kinds of extensions to ERE. Those are not supported...

Maybe it would make sense to work on the shell scripts that pull out the neccessary information from the file system? Okay, would be only a solution for Linux...

The PBX processes "ACDRoute" responses. The parameters are {CallID, Destination}. The Destination field contains the number where the call should be routed to. That is a longer story. There is a three-stage process to initiate and terminate the call. This should actually be pretty much the same as in version 2.0, so the information on the Wiki should apply. Is it an option to move to version 2.0?

Yes. It would behave as if the extension was busy.

Okay. Anything in the log like: "Could not find call of user ... that should be parked", "The call of user ... cannot be parked", or "The call of user ... cannot be parked as there was no free orbit available in ..."?

Yes, interesting thought. We would definitevely make this optional, as there are many problems associated with it (cost question, abuse, people you don't want to talk to, and last not least caller-ID is still a challenge for most PSTN gateways). To answer your question, currently that is not possible...

Okay, maybe you can try pbxctrl-2.1.6.2367.exe (same path)... Seems there is something with the "inactive" in the SDP.

I still don't get it. Lines equal lines in the registration tab of the extension in the PBX?

Can you give the following image a quick try? http://www.pbxnsip.com/protect/pbxctrl-2.1.6.2366.exe (see http://wiki.pbxnsip.com/index.php/Installi...#Manual_Upgrade on how to apply that image)

You mean, the phone sends a star code to the PBX? And that results in the "call park has failed"? Is it a phone config problem or a problem of the PBX handling the star code?

If you have some templates that we could use it would be great, we'll happily add them. Currently the device must be configured manually.

Read that as "personal" annoucement... I guess we need to re-visit that as the extension can now have between 0..5 personal annoucements. Problem is that you cannot "hear" them in the drop down list and it is difficult to tell which is which.

What tone scheme do you use? This is under the registration settings for the extension.

Yes, we originally had the feature that the user could also press the button after the beep - however that caused a lot of problems so we took that out. I think the best workaround is to put another second of silence after the operator annoucement and this way double the time that the user can think about going to the operator...