February 2010 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Trouble getting access in a building.
by abalashov＠evaristesys.com Feb. 10, 2010

Feb. 10, 2010

On 02/10/2010 10:54 AM, Lunch Hound wrote: > Unless specifically abrogated in the lease contract, all state laws > guarantee the owner's right of access. That assumes the owner is on your side. The owner may not wish to annoy the customer. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/

2 1

Data Center recommendations
by lunchhound9999＠gmail.com Feb. 10, 2010

Feb. 10, 2010

Hi, Who do you like for data centers these days? Looking for a site more than 1000 miles from Chicago. Thanks!

7 7

Netrake SBCs
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com Feb. 9, 2010

Feb. 9, 2010

Anyone out there using Audiocodes/Netrake SBCs. Seems like they are EOL'ing the product next year.

1 0

Broadworks Patch Religion
by jrandall＠comwave.net Feb. 8, 2010

Feb. 8, 2010

My original reply still applies to patch dependencies. IMHO if one needs certain patches to address negatively impacting behaviour, one looks into all of the dependencies required, perform the appropriate lab testing, and then deploy if all lab testing and pre-production soak periods have passed without problems. If there are any problems in testing, one has to consider which bugs/behaviours are worse to live with for the time being and make a judgement call. Really it's all about trade-offs, some prefer to take the extra time and be more thorough and others like to take extra risks to be more nimble. I'm more in favor of being as thorough as possible and taking the time to ensure as smooth of a patch rollout as possible to mitigate as much risk as possible relating to new bugs and/or unwanted behaviours. Regards, Justin Randall -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jason Warner Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:11 PM To: David Hiers; VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Broadworks Patch Religion The problem with this approach is that you get so far behind on patches that when you need to apply a specific patch you can't because of patch dependencies. You often cannot apply only the patches you want because of this. With as many patches released by Broadsoft, tracking the dependencies and which patches you need to apply in order to apply the patch(es) you need becomes problematic. The longer you wait, the more problematic it becomes. -Jason Warner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Randall" <jrandall at comwave.net> To: "David Hiers" <hiersd at gmail.com>, VoiceOps at voiceops.org Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 12:19:43 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Broadworks Patch Religion With almost any piece of vendor software, patching always carries the risk of introducing newer (and potentially more harmful) bugs. While Broadsoft does a good job of attempting to document the interfaces impacted by each patch, unless something is not working correctly in your deployment, it's probably best to go by the approach of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". I know they have an N-2 support policy but this is main release and service pack based so it's not like you couldn't get support or further patches for your issues because you haven't installed the latest patch bundle or AP. AFAIK on R16 you don't even need to upgrade SPs at all and can simply stick with the R16 main release and add whichever patches you require. Regards, Justin Randall -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:00 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Broadworks Patch Religion For our entire history with BW, we've carefully researched and selected individual patches to apply based on the functions that we use and the issues that we see. BW explicitly states that "customers can pick and choose the patches they want", and they make it easy for us to do so. This process has worked quite well for us so far. It takes a good deal of effort to keep up with over 1 patch per day across the entire BW universe of products, but we've done it and had good results. Recently, the "open you mouth and close your eyes" idea has been advanced, in which we would apply ALL patches, regardless of function or issue. We'd wait 30 days or so to let everyone else find the problems with the contents of the default patch bundle, then just slap the bundle on without any thinking. We'd still test like chimps on crack after patching, of course. Are you picky or promiscuous with your BW patches? Since this discussion is very vendor/version specific, we run BW R14sp9. Thanks, David Hiers _______________________________________________ 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

3 4

IAM callername instead of CNAM
by mewash＠gmail.com Feb. 5, 2010

Feb. 5, 2010

hi all, has anyone heard of a US residential carrier transmitting the callername parameter from the IAM instead of doing a normal CNAM lookup? i have some users--for whom the pbx is (intentionally) set up to transmit an invalid cpn--who are claiming that when they call their home phones from the office, their internal (sip) caller name appears on the caller id along with the invalid cpn, which makes no sense from a CNAM lookup standpoint. the only thing i could think of (other than they are nuts/lying) is that their gateway is transmitting the sip callername in the IAM and the carrier is passing that along instead of doing a lookup. the btn is the same for all users so that can be ruled out. they are all on cablevision or time warner. thanks, milosz

6 18

Multiple Broadworks Hosting NE's
by mh＠markholloway.com Feb. 4, 2010

Feb. 4, 2010

How many of you are running a single Hosting NE versus regionalizing your customer base across multiple Hosting NE's?

2 1

Multiple Broadworks Hosting NE's
by jw＠jasper.us Feb. 4, 2010

Feb. 4, 2010

Hosting NE pair with geographic redundancy here. Our second Hosting NE pair is co-located with the first. Customers are only regionalized by multiple geographic proxies/Acmes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Holloway" <mh at markholloway.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2010 8:44:09 AM Subject: [VoiceOps] Multiple Broadworks Hosting NE's How many of you are running a single Hosting NE versus regionalizing your customer base across multiple Hosting NE's? _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Broadworks Patch Religion
by jrandall＠comwave.net Feb. 3, 2010

Feb. 3, 2010

What I was actually referring to is the fact that if you choose not to go down the "Service Pack" path on R16, you can continue to receive all of the latest patches on the base R16 without upgrading (this is new as of R16). Once you choose to upgrade to SP1 (or any future SP), you are locked on the SP code train and need to keep up with the N-2 service pack support policy in order to continue patching your system. You are correct that the effective EOM date for R16sp1 is October 31st 2010 however the effective EOM date for R16 (if you don't go down the SP code train) is actually August 28th 2011. Regards, Justin Randall -----Original Message----- From: Mark Holloway [mailto:mh at markholloway.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:22 PM To: Justin Randall Cc: David Hiers; VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Broadworks Patch Religion The problem with this approach is R16 main release and R16.SP1 will be end of maintenance on October 31, 2010. There are additional R16 SP releases planned this year and you will need to be on one of those to continue patching your system. On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Justin Randall wrote: > AFAIK on R16 you don't even need to upgrade SPs at all and can simply > stick with the R16 main release and add whichever patches you require. > > Regards, > > Justin Randall >

1 0

Broadworks Patch Religion
by jrandall＠comwave.net Feb. 3, 2010

Feb. 3, 2010

With almost any piece of vendor software, patching always carries the risk of introducing newer (and potentially more harmful) bugs. While Broadsoft does a good job of attempting to document the interfaces impacted by each patch, unless something is not working correctly in your deployment, it's probably best to go by the approach of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". I know they have an N-2 support policy but this is main release and service pack based so it's not like you couldn't get support or further patches for your issues because you haven't installed the latest patch bundle or AP. AFAIK on R16 you don't even need to upgrade SPs at all and can simply stick with the R16 main release and add whichever patches you require. Regards, Justin Randall -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:00 PM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Broadworks Patch Religion For our entire history with BW, we've carefully researched and selected individual patches to apply based on the functions that we use and the issues that we see. BW explicitly states that "customers can pick and choose the patches they want", and they make it easy for us to do so. This process has worked quite well for us so far. It takes a good deal of effort to keep up with over 1 patch per day across the entire BW universe of products, but we've done it and had good results. Recently, the "open you mouth and close your eyes" idea has been advanced, in which we would apply ALL patches, regardless of function or issue. We'd wait 30 days or so to let everyone else find the problems with the contents of the default patch bundle, then just slap the bundle on without any thinking. We'd still test like chimps on crack after patching, of course. Are you picky or promiscuous with your BW patches? Since this discussion is very vendor/version specific, we run BW R14sp9. Thanks, David Hiers _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

3 3

FW: For Your Consideration
by jrandall＠comwave.net Feb. 3, 2010

Feb. 3, 2010

In fairness to Jack he was not a member of this list at the time the original thread requesting information on Canadian VoIP Service Providers was posted. _____ From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Lee Riemer Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:19 PM To: Mark R Lindsey Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] FW: For Your Consideration Replying to the original request's thread would have avoided this as well. To those with short memories and active inboxes, this had the looks of an unsolicited email. On 2/2/2010 4:56 PM, Mark R Lindsey wrote: This is a reasonable response to the January 27 question from Jay Hennigan. Jay specifically asked for recommended providers. Jack Santeramo recommends Commwave. If somebody had replied, pretending not to be Commwave, and offered Commwave as an example answer to Jay's question, then I doubt we'd have this discussion. I'd rather just have a vendor explain the services they offer. All the vendors are up for public ridicule^Wtroubleshooting anyway. It's best when they represent themselves. On Feb 2, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Lee Riemer wrote: Where's the moderator? On 2/2/2010 4:21 PM, Jack Santeramo wrote: Comwave Telecom is Canada's leading provider of wholesale VoIP services. We specialize in the provisioning of SIP trunking and DID origination to the carrier and reseller markets throughout Canada, the United States and Overseas. Comwave prides itself in delivering an enhanced support infrastructure via dedicated teams for technical support, DID provisioning and LNP fulfillment, in addition to E911 solutions, full fax support, billing and our Carrier Self Service Portal. Comwave is a full service provider also offering international and domestic long distance termination, toll free and an extensive white label VoIP offering. For any questions please contact Jack Santeramo at 416.953.3050 or visit www.comwave.net <http://www.comwave.net/> Regards, Jack Santeramo Comwave Telecom T 416.663.9700 X344 C 416.953.3050 F 416.736.3170 On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: We're a VoIP provider in California with carrier arrangements for DIDs throughout much of the US. We have a few customers with offices in Canada and are beginning to get inquiries from others with cross-border US/Canadian presence. Has anyone gone down this path that can give some pointers? Obviously we can put IADs with FXO (or even PRI) ports on-premise at each customer location tied to the local telco but this doesn't scale all that well. I'm looking for legal/regulatory info about such things as taxes, 9-1-1, getting listed in the local white pages, etc. as well as any technical obstacles and recommended providers. Technically it appears to be pretty straightforward. It's all part of the same NANP. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

2 1