December 2009 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Faxing to the new DASH SBC's
by chris.ledford＠cnxntech.com Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

We have started to experience faxing issues to the new Dash SBC's. In the traces we are receiving a new T38 Invite that was not there before and it is waiting for our Switch to decline it before it moves on and completes the fax. Is anyone else experiencing this? Are there any suggestions to correct from the switch side? If I turn T38 on then my other faxing paths die..... Thanks in advance, Chris Ledford NOC ATOG Engineer CCNA/CCSP/CVOICE A+/NET+/SEC+/LINUX+/MCPe

1 0

VoIP (SIP) to VoATM conversion
by brent＠overthewire.com.au Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

Hi all, Hoping to tap the collective minds here. I am wondering how to best convert voice traffic from VoATM/VoDSL to VoIP (SIP in particular). Here in Australia, a lot of competitive carriers deliver ISDN (up to E1) over SHDSL tails with an IAD of some description (eg Verilink) on the end. We have access to SHDSL tails, but of course with IP overhead we cannot squeeze 30 channels down a 2M/2M circuit if we run G711. Does anyone have any idea on how best to scale a solution whereby we can remove the IP overhead but still use our softswitches (seems to me that a lot of the competitive carriers here are using ATM directly plugged into their older switches). How are others doing this and making it scale ? Thanks Brent -- Brent Paddon Director | Over the Wire Pty Ltd brent.paddon at overthewire.com.au | www.overthewire.com.au Phone: 07 3847 9292 | Fax: 07 3847 9696 | Mobile: 0400 2400 54

2 1

Conferencing NPAs
by carlos＠race.com Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

I'm sure the FCC would love to hear that. Carlos Alcantar Race Telecommunications, Inc. 101 Haskins Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 P: 650.649.3550 F: 650.649.3551 -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Ujjval Karihaloo Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:14 AM To: Scott Berkman; 'Alex Balashov' Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Level 3 just told me that we need to start blocking these NPA-NXX's...and that they have a lot of trouble with them..no specific explaination. Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO? 80112 -----Original Message----- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:scott at sberkman.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Alex Balashov' Cc: Ujjval Karihaloo; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs I don't have that level of knowledge of their network, but I can easily believe they'd only have tandem trunking in some of these rural places. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: Scott Berkman Cc: 'Ujjval Karihaloo'; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Conferencing NPAs Scott Berkman wrote: > Yes, number of Tandem trunks and/or PRIs. > > Remember that Level 3's voice service was born out of their managed > modem service. As the modem business (especially that of their really large > wholesale customers) started declining, that capacity was converted to (or > shared with) IP media gateways. Therefore areas that didn't have a large > capacity in the modem world didn't have a large capacity for calls. Yes, that I know, but my understanding was that this applies to origination. That is why they have direct end-office trunks to nearly everywhere. How does the termination architecture work? I would assume it's like any other large CLEC and/or IXC: by default, they connect to a POI and have tandem groups from there, and also ride their own network to select end-offices in which colocate equipment for the purpose of generating UNEs, when/if there is switching equipment there. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Conferencing NPAs
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

Guys: I know few months back there was a buzz about the Gotomeeting and other free conferencing numbers being dinged-up for very high per min rates. Has anyone had issues with Providers like Level3 charging high rates for these conferencing numbers? Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112 [cid:image001.jpg at 01CA7765.84A09880]<http://www.simplesignal.com/>

12 25

analog pulse dialing solutions
by carlos＠race.com Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

On another note have you do you know if the alarm modem will work over voip? With my experience fax works with t.38 normal modem calls not so well. Hit and miss. -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:05 AM To: Brian_Tate at syncglobal.net Cc: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] analog pulse dialing solutions It might be cheaper to pay to upgrade their alarm panel, just a thought. Brian Tate wrote: > Thanks for all the pointers! > > The application is supporting an old alarm system that only supports pulse > dialing over an analog line. The customer is located in a rural area. > >From what I have found so far, only the Innomedia models seems to explicitly > support the feature. We aren't a Cisco shop. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Yaklin [mailto:myaklin at g4.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:17 PM > To: Paul Timmins > Cc: Brian_Tate at syncglobal.net; VoiceOps at voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] analog pulse dialing solutions > > > I cannot even think of a legacy setup that would require pulse dialing... > > It must be a heck of a customer account to warrant putting in this > research and work to get their contract. > > One has to wonder if you could just go on ebay and buy them a new kit > for 99 bucks and it would be 15 years newer yet still 10 years old ;-) > Here customer, a freebie! > > Just for curiousity sake could you share with us the legacy setup that > got you onto this path? > > But some google foo turned up URLs like this: > http://soundwin.co.uk/s202.html > > which says it supports pulse dialing. > Pulse Dial support: Support pulse dialing generation and > detection.(Optional) > > good luck and let us know how it all works out. > > matt at g4.net > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Paul Timmins wrote: > > >> And someone here was saying that technologies obsoleted by better options >> > die > >> a quick death. Hah! :) >> >> Brian Tate wrote: >> >>> Can anyone share experience with supporting legacy systems that require >>> analog pulse dialing? >>> >>> It seems that SIP ATA?s and VoIP media gateways prefer tone dialing >>> instead. >>> >>> Do the ?dial pulse to DTMF? converters really work for business class >>> services? >>> >>> ?Anyone selling good implementations of US Patent 6914978? >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> * SyncGlobal, a DoveTel Communications Company *** >>> >>> * Engineer 678-821-1129 * >>> >>> * Brian_Tate at SyncGlobal.net <mailto:Brian_Tate at SyncGlobal.net> * >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> VoiceOps mailing list >>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > > _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

5 4

analog pulse dialing solutions
by Brian_Tate＠SyncGlobal.net Dec. 9, 2009

Dec. 9, 2009

Can anyone share experience with supporting legacy systems that require analog pulse dialing? It seems that SIP ATA's and VoIP media gateways prefer tone dialing instead. Do the "dial pulse to DTMF" converters really work for business class services? .Anyone selling good implementations of US Patent 6914978? Thanks in advance, Brian SyncGlobal, a DoveTel Communications Company Engineer 678-821-1129 <mailto:Brian_Tate at SyncGlobal.net> Brian_Tate at SyncGlobal.net

4 6

Level 3 Termination Issues - Vector
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com Dec. 8, 2009

Dec. 8, 2009

We are seeing a lot of 503s from Level 3 Vector network. Any similar sightings? L3 side could be maxed out on our Trunks, but just wanted to confirm as there is no response from Level 3 NOC on this. Ujjval Karihaloo VP Voice Engineering IP Phone: +13032428610 E-Fax: +17202391690 SimpleSignal Inc. 88 Inverness Circle East Suite K105 Englewood, CO 80112 [cid:image001.jpg at 01CA7820.E4696740]<http://www.simplesignal.com/>

2 2

Contacting Carriers and CLECs (Specifically T-Mobile today)
by scott＠sberkman.net Dec. 2, 2009

Dec. 2, 2009

Does anyone know of a centralized list or standard method of reaching other CLECs and Carriers, specifically Cell Carriers? Something similar to Puck's NOC list (http://puck.nether.net/netops/) is what I am thinking of. We are having some routing issues to certain numbers we own from T-Mobile and are having issues reaching the right type of support staff, especially since you can't even get their regular support without an account. Thanks, -Scott

6 6

Contacting Carriers and CLECs (Specifically T-Mobiletoday)
by carlos＠race.com Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

Look the numbers up in the lerg telcordia is pretty good at keeping all that info up to date. From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Scott Berkman Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:42 AM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Contacting Carriers and CLECs (Specifically T-Mobiletoday) Does anyone know of a centralized list or standard method of reaching other CLECs and Carriers, specifically Cell Carriers? Something similar to Puck's NOC list (http://puck.nether.net/netops/) is what I am thinking of. We are having some routing issues to certain numbers we own from T-Mobile and are having issues reaching the right type of support staff, especially since you can't even get their regular support without an account. Thanks, -Scott

1 0

OT: Payment bureau
by abalashov＠evaristesys.com Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

Greetings, I'm not sure if this is within the purview of the list or not, but I would like to get everyone's thoughts on the creation of something like a "credit bureau" specific to our industry. I don't think we currently have anything like that in the VoIP cottage industry, unless I am mistaken. Simply put, we should have a way of anonymously rating customers' payment history and noting any especially egregious disputes. Access should be restricted only to verified companies legitimately engaged in VoIP-related trade. My interest in this is from a consulting and professional services angle, since that's what Evariste Systems does. However, I do not see why this could not also accommodate payment information from the ITSP and small carrier world. There are lots of potential problems, of course: 1) Some customers would consider disclosure of any transactional information a violation of standing NDAs; 2) The possibility of clutter from small/irrelevant transactions, like $5 prepayments for O/T or calling cards; 3) Some need for moderation and standards enforcement; there is a very real possibility of abuse by members by leveraging such a tool in frivolous business disputes, or business disputes in which their hands are not clean any more than the customer's; example: I could fail to deliver to a customer what I promised, and then report his refusal to pay as a financial misdeed; 4) Large deals and transactions often already go through credit checks with real credit bureaus and various ratings firms. Nevertheless, I think there would be a lot of value as well. And while there is the possibility that the existence of such a tool could be used to intimidate/threaten customers in business disputes, the value of catching fraudsters who go around from VoIP company to VoIP company ripping each one off and disappearing into a hole might outweigh that. My father does, among other things, some freelance translation. In that industry, there's a web site called: http://www.paymentpractices.net/ It is upon seeing this that I wondered why we do not have something like that in our world. Eager to hear your thoughts, -- Alex -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671

3 4