August 2009 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Call reconciliation across multiple elements
by anorexicpoodle＠gmail.com Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

For all of you out there with multiple call control elements in your network that might touch a single call, what methods do you use to correlate CDR's across multiple dissimilar platforms (SBC, softswitch, feature servers, LCR etc)?

8 17

Alternative IVR Platform?
by carlos＠race.com Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

And your right I don't like the fact that they do lock us out of certain parts of the switch, but at the same time i feel the support they have given me has been excellent and they have been able to work with me thru all my issue where I haven't had to go dig thru those sections of the switch. And I'll take back what I said about moving everything to Metaswitch we still do have our moh server on asterisk as well as our vm server with no plans on moving them anytime soon. Carlos Alcantar Race Telecommunications, Inc. 101 Haskins Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 P: 650.649.3550 x143 F: 650.649.3551 -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Jones [mailto:jjones at danrj.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:06 PM To: Carlos Alcantar Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? Having used both, my opinion is Meta is a good product, as long as it does what you need. Not very adaptable. Usable to deliver pots service via voip, but anything else use Asterisk. My preference has been to setup Meta to handle all the SS7 dips, E911, etc, with Asterisk more as a feature server hanging off the Meta. I also do not like Meta support going in and making changes to networks without prior communications, and unilateraly removing tech access to areas they should have access to. I have always had the opinion that once I buy the gear I have control, not the manufacturer. If I wish to purchase support, then support me but do not lock me out. ATT used to be good at this also. On Aug 1, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Carlos Alcantar wrote: > We do pay for the support contract. The person assigned to me for > support has been awesome he's always been very fast to help me with > issues. I guess it doesn't hurt that our office is 15min away from > the > Metaswitch alameda office and that's where my support guy is based out > of so I can go over and sit with him when need be. > > -carlos > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:36 AM > To: Carlos Alcantar > Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? > > Carlos Alcantar wrote: > >> And one thing I can speak highly of is Metaswitch >> support is awesome. Hands down best support from any vendor I have > usesd. > > Seriously? > > You must be paying them an asston of money. > > I have a very opposite perspective, at least on their American support > apparatus. The actual UK guys are generally very decent. > > -- > Alex Balashov > Evariste Systems > Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ > Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 > Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 > Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

3 2

Level3 VIPER ---> VECTOR
by bsneddon＠gc1.com Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

We migrated a couple years ago I. I suppose it'd be more accurate to say we were *forced* to migrate off. :) The migration was fairly quick and painless for us, however the new platform had a few differences I wasn't too fond of such as lack of support for RFC2833. I don't recall any significant quality differences. In general I'm pleased with the quality of Vector compared to some other carriers' networks. Brian ----- "David Hiers" <David_Hiers at adp.com> wrote: > Have you migrated from VIPER to VECTOR? > > How'd it go? > > Do you still have you job? > > :) > > > David Hiers > > CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP > ADP Dealer Services > 2525 SW 1st Ave. > Suite 300W > Portland, OR 97201 > o: 503-205-4467 > f: 503-402-3277 > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > addressee and may contain information that is privileged and > confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended > recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in > error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message > and any attachments from your system. > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Qatar
by zavoid＠gmail.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

Anyone else notice Changes to the sip/rtp filtering go on already in Qatar today? Colin

1 0

Any subscribers from the UK?
by gavin.henry＠gmail.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

2009/8/1 Gavin Henry <gavin.henry at gmail.com>: > 2009/8/1 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>: >>> I have, however, seriously considered using >>> SER/OpenSER/whatever-it's-called- >>> this-week as call routing platform, backing off to Asterisk for any >>> application >>> stuff. We've got a commercial SBC to deal with the front-end >>> registrations, etc. >> >> That is the way that the service delivery platforms we help engineer work. >> ?The OpenSER technology stack is our bread and butter, and it's what we do >> 90% of the time. ?It is, however, a relatively abstruse and mildly >> programmatic art - not out-of-the-box / turn-key like Asterisk at all. Hi Alex, This is what is one of our two first boxes; OpenSIPS. -- http://www.suretecsystems.com/services/openldap/ http://www.suretectelecom.com

1 0

Alternative IVR Platform?
by voiceops＠chickey.org Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

err of course if you're talking just about IVR functionality (sorry i heard MetaSwitch and thought of softswitches) I would look at Iperia and Movius. Both have some advanced voicemail and auto attendant functionality. -katia On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:08 PM, katia goforth <voiceops at chickey.org>wrote: > Talking SIP would be at the bottom of my list just based off the fact that > they run on Windows 2003 with MS SQL databases. > Metaswitch, Sonus ASX and BroadSoft (BroadWorks) platforms are the top > three that i would think are production-ready. > > -katia > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Carlos Alcantar <carlos at race.com> wrote: > >> Metaswitch has done a fairly nice job that's what we are running. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org >> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Hiers, David >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 5:54 PM >> To: Raul Rodriguez; voiceops at voiceops.org >> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? >> >> How good is their scripting engine? >> >> We've been able to handle most of our requirements with native broadsoft >> call handling, but I do miss the scripting engine and gui in cisco's >> ipcc. >> >> >> >> >> >> David Hiers >> >> CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP >> ADP Dealer Services >> 2525 SW 1st Ave. >> Suite 300W >> Portland, OR 97201 >> o: 503-205-4467 >> f: 503-402-3277 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org >> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Raul Rodriguez >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:13 PM >> To: voiceops at voiceops.org >> Subject: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? >> >> Anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to Talking SIP >> (http://www.ivr.com/talking-sip.php)? >> >> Thanks. >> -Raul R. >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the >> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and >> confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient >> or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >> notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any >> attachments from your system. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > >

4 3

Alternative IVR Platform?
by carlos＠race.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

We do pay for the support contract. The person assigned to me for support has been awesome he's always been very fast to help me with issues. I guess it doesn't hurt that our office is 15min away from the Metaswitch alameda office and that's where my support guy is based out of so I can go over and sit with him when need be. -carlos -----Original Message----- From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:36 AM To: Carlos Alcantar Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? Carlos Alcantar wrote: > And one thing I can speak highly of is Metaswitch > support is awesome. Hands down best support from any vendor I have usesd. Seriously? You must be paying them an asston of money. I have a very opposite perspective, at least on their American support apparatus. The actual UK guys are generally very decent. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

1 0

Alternative IVR Platform?
by carlos＠race.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

Yea the metaswitch does have a nice ivr platform of course its tightly integrated with there softswitch which isn't a cheap solution but it's very well done. And one thing I can speak highly of is Metaswitch support is awesome. Hands down best support from any vendor I have usesd. From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of katia goforth Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:11 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? err of course if you're talking just about IVR functionality (sorry i heard MetaSwitch and thought of softswitches) I would look at Iperia and Movius. Both have some advanced voicemail and auto attendant functionality. -katia On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:08 PM, katia goforth <voiceops at chickey.org> wrote: Talking SIP would be at the bottom of my list just based off the fact that they run on Windows 2003 with MS SQL databases. Metaswitch, Sonus ASX and BroadSoft (BroadWorks) platforms are the top three that i would think are production-ready. -katia On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Carlos Alcantar <carlos at race.com> wrote: Metaswitch has done a fairly nice job that's what we are running. -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Hiers, David Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 5:54 PM To: Raul Rodriguez; voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? How good is their scripting engine? We've been able to handle most of our requirements with native broadsoft call handling, but I do miss the scripting engine and gui in cisco's ipcc. David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Raul Rodriguez Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:13 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? Anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to Talking SIP (http://www.ivr.com/talking-sip.php)? Thanks. -Raul R. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

Alternative IVR Platform?
by carlos＠race.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

Asterisk is a great alternative we used it up till recently moving everything to the Metaswitch. The issues we ran into is exactly what was stated below scalability. One thing that was a pet peeve of of mine with asterisk was anytime a new major release was put out they always seemed to make exten syntax changes to functions which made it hard to upgrade and keep up with new code. But none the less it did it's job for a couple of years so I can't knock it. -carlos -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 9:02 AM To: Scott Berkman Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Alternative IVR Platform? Scott Berkman wrote: > Asterisk also makes for a very powerful and scriptable IVR platform if > you are willing/able to put the work in. I was about to say - it makes an excellent feature box. My only major concern relates to its scalability; not even so much the amount of concurrent calls per box that it can handle as how much that amount might be reduced by a weighty, complicated dial plan with database backing, etc. On the other hand, the ability to stick it on commodity PC hardware far outweighs any of these downsides from a cost perspective; per-port cost with Asterisk is among the lowest for applications, especially if you bother to do it right (i.e. centralised logic controller, nothing too host-wise). SEMS (SIP Express Media Server) from IPTel/Tekelec is another viable alternative that might scale better. Obviously, it's a pretty bad choice for doing a simple SMB-oriented IVR; it's at least 100x more difficult than doing it with the Asterisk dial plan, and requires using some poorly documented C++ and/or Python APIs. However, if it's something really esoteric and requiring the flexibility of integration and/or data acquisition paths that Asterisk can't provide, or requires a higher degree of real-time call control (i.e. continuous deduction of prepaid balances and termination of call if they have expired, for example), I think it's a pretty good platform. Also makes a great generic signaling-only B2BUA, using ann_b2bua app for exaple. Definitely not the right thing for *basic* IVR, though. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

good to see this going
by carlos＠race.com Aug. 1, 2009

Aug. 1, 2009

I think that's the same boat I was in. -----Original Message----- From: Hiers, David [mailto:David_Hiers at adp.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:13 PM To: Paul Timmins; Carlos Alcantar Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] good to see this going The process is pretty opaque if you wake up one day and decide to start a VSP. After you've done it once, it doesn't seem so hard in retrospect. Took me forever to figure out that we didn't even need a ECC or CC. David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:34 PM To: Carlos Alcantar Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] good to see this going Heh, it's all a matter of knowing the process. I can't say we've ever had to take more than a week to get anything, from point codes, OCNs, or even CO prefixes. I've gotten CLLI codes in a day, too. Not all of the above are free, but if you've got your amex all warmed up the processes are somewhat trivial. CLEC approval and ICA negotiation on the other hand, you'd have a point. -Paul Carlos Alcantar wrote: > Dealing with getting codes ect on the telco side makes getting ips and > asn like a walk in the park. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:37 PM > To: Carlos Alcantar > Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] good to see this going > > Carlos Alcantar wrote: > > >> So who's had the good time of having to deal with getting codes from >> neustar/telcordia ect. >> > > I'm not a CLEC, but have been privy to the process. > > _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

1 0