Jump to content

Vodia PBX

Administrators
  • Posts

    11,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vodia PBX

  1. Well, that is a complicated topic. DTMF depends not only on the connection between the PBX and Exchange, is also depends on the DTMF that has been negotiated on the other side. In the end, a Wireshark trace will show what is the problem.

     

    Plus it is still a mystery to me how Exchange can be made to detect inband DTMF. They are able to recognize voice, so they should also be able to detect inband DTMF IMHO. I saw it working in one place, but in other places it did not work and I have no idea why.

  2. You had mentioned not having the same issue with your UM server; please let me know if there is any other Trunk debugging that I could do that would be helpful to get this fixed up.

     

    Well, regarding the UM trunk there are two settings: The redirect flag and the "Assume that call comes from user". The last one is important if you want to accept trunk-in-trunk-out calls (which Microsoft Exchange does) - then you need to charge an account for that. Someone needs to pay the bill, even in a IP-PBX.

  3. Okay, we made the 2.1 version publically available.

     

    The release notes can be found at http://wiki.pbxnsip.com/index.php/Release_Notes_2.1.0. IMHO there are a lot of good fixes and also some interesting new features and 2.1 will be a great release!

     

    As stated there, there is not reason to upgrade running systems unless there is a good reason in the release notes. If you just want to try the new version, please ask for a demo key and run the trial on a seperate test machine.

  4. Well, what you can do is run a PCAP trace on the phone and see if it is really sending REGISTER packets. Or if you can have Wireshark in the network you will get a "objective" view on where it is failing. If you filter by IP address the actual PCAP trace will not become too big, so that you can run it for several hours.

     

    If you are running the phones behind NAT, it would also be very interesting if the packets arrive at the PBX unmodified. There is some equipment out there that tries to behave smart and patches SIP packets in a bad way or randomly changes ports. Just want to make sure we are not burning time on such bad equipment!

  5. This odd behavior is RFC compliant but highly non-standard and breaks symmetric NAT traversal workarounds commonly deployed by VOIP providers.

     

    I remember that the older versions had a flag that you can switch off in the user interface. But it seems that this flag is not available in the version 8 any more?! I check my phone here, but even the unlocking does not work for me any more...

     

    Maybe there are too many Cisco engineers in the IETF working groups and this is their way of making everyone upgrading to IPv6.

  6. If the phone does not register any more, I would recommend to set the transport layer to UDP and use IP addresses (no DNS addresses). If that is not stable, there is something really strange going on. If the DNS does the trick, check out the availability of the DNS server. If the UDP does make a difference, there msut be something with the stability of the TCP connections in this setup.

  7. Well, whenever an IP interface becomes unavailable the PBX has a problem because the internal routing tables don't fit any more. Is there any way you can stabilize that VPN connection on the PBX? For example, have another server doing the VPN and just send the traffic there (in a different IP segment)? Then the PBX IP config never changes and the PBX does not get confused.

  8. The *90xxx works on my system too. I was just trying the Unicast SIP paging account and could not get any audio to play. The Aastra phones only show the caller ID on the display.

     

    Then it is not a Aastra-specific problem... Must be something else, maybe a permission problem. Or just move to the latest and greatest 2.1.

     

    Also, is it possible to somehow enable the *90xx inbetween two PBXnSIP installations? I have one in the US and one in Mexico both have different extension number spaces and are connected via a SIP Gateway Trunk and a dial plan entry. Would that work if I add a dial plan entry that gets the *90 & EXT over to the other system?

     

    If you register a trunk then that should be possible (maybe you just create another trunk for this purpose). The incoming call from PBX1 will be treated like a regular extension call on PBX2 - then you can call whatever you like there.

  9. I verified it here and it worked fine:

     

    [5] 2007/10/08 13:36:47: SIP Tx udp:192.168.0.155:5060:

    INVITE sip:44@192.168.0.155 SIP/2.0

    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.154:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-574d8fa8e8ff00be15c9d675fed0d3d5;rport

    From: "41" <sip:41@test.pbxnsip.com>;tag=24656

    To: "*9044" <sip:*9044@test.pbxnsip.com>

    Call-ID: f259c65d@pbx

    CSeq: 10040 INVITE

    Max-Forwards: 70

    Contact: <sip:44@192.168.0.154:5060;transport=udp>

    Supported: 100rel, replaces, norefersub

    Allow-Events: refer

    Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, PRACK, INFO, UPDATE

    Accept: application/sdp

    User-Agent: pbxnsip-PBX/2.1.0.2115

    Call-Info: <sip:41@test.pbxnsip.com>;answer-after=0

    Content-Type: application/sdp

    Content-Length: 244

     

    v=0

    o=- 56981 56981 IN IP4 192.168.0.154

    s=-

    c=IN IP4 192.168.0.154

    t=0 0

    m=audio 60508 RTP/AVP 0 8 101

    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000

    a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000

    a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000

    a=fmtp:101 0-16

    a=sendrecv

     

    [5] 2007/10/08 13:36:47: SIP Rx udp:192.168.0.155:5060:

    SIP/2.0 200 OK

    Call-ID: f259c65d@pbx

    CSeq: 10040 INVITE

    From: "41" <sip:41@test.pbxnsip.com>;tag=24656

    To: "*9044" <sip:*9044@test.pbxnsip.com>;tag=596481733029d22

    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.154:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-574d8fa8e8ff00be15c9d675fed0d3d5;rport

    Content-Length: 255

    Call-Info: <sip:192.168.0.154>;appearance-index=1

    Allow-Events: talk,hold,conference

    Allow:NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,INFO

    Content-Type: application/sdp

    Supported: replaces

    Contact: "*9044" <sip:44@192.168.0.155>

    User-Agent: Aastra 57i/2.0.1.2000 Brcm-Callctrl/v1.7.2.2 MxSF/v3.6.2.5

     

    v=0

    o=MxSIP 0 1562308524 IN IP4 192.168.0.155

    s=SIP Call

    c=IN IP4 192.168.0.155

    t=0 0

    m=audio 3000 RTP/AVP 0 8 101

    a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

    a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000

    a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000

    a=fmtp:101 0-15

    a=sendrecv

  10. The problem here is that the Cisco phone sends UDP packets from a different port than it is listening on. This is extremly NAT unfriendly, and such a phone will never work behind NAT (FYI).

     

    There is a setting on the phone called "NAT friendly UDP ports" or so that turns this off. If you toggle this flag the Cisco phone will use the port 5060 for sending and receiving.

     

    Cisco is one of the few phones that do this. Practically all other phones use the same port for sending and receiving.

  11. When we upgrade our systems, all of ithe personal announcements on the mailboxes disappear. I tried changing the mailbox setting to Name Announcement and then back to Personal and it didn't make a difference. Any ideas?

     

    2.1 has more than one personal greeting... Unfortunately it is not so easy to migrate the old prompts to the new prompt style.

     

    I guess manual explainations are more complicated than just doing it automatically. so check out http://www.pbxnsip.com/download/pbxctrl-2.1.0.2115.exe - it should migrate those files.

  12. I would suggest to use the logging feature in the PBX. You can set per extension on what log level registration events should be logged. For example, if you set it to log level 1 and set the general log level to 2, you should be able to see when the phone looses it's registration and when it comes back.

     

    This feature helped in other situations to figure out what was wrong. In that case there was a router that was changing the NAT binding from time to time and during that switch-over the registration got lost. A replacement of the router solved the problem.

  13. In analog FXO, you cannot signal a transfer. All you can do it establish another connection using another FXO and then loop the calls through the SIP PBX.

     

    I would not recommend to do this on a regular basis. Keep in mind that the audio path in such situations will become bad (at least two additional A/D conversions involved) and that you will quickly use up your FXO lines.

×
×
  • Create New...