- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Global Crossing outage?
by peeip989＠gmail.com Dec. 29, 2011

Dec. 29, 2011

Anyone else experiencing a voip outage with Global Crossing? Any idea how widespread it is?

3 3

Cloudvox and their digits service
by beckman＠angryox.com Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

Cloudvox used to offer an API for LERG data. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cloudvox-launches-free-api-bookmark… Unfortunately ifbyphone discontinued Cloudvox which included discontinuing their API service. I've seen the localcallingguide.com API, but I hate XML... Did anyone take over this service? Anyone from ifbyphone here want to put the code out there for someone to take over? Heck, I might be willing to offer it. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5

T.38 termination provider?
by nathana＠fsr.com Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

Hello, New to the list. I work for a regional broadband ISP who is looking to also become an ITSP. We are looking for a good SIP termination provider with reasonable rates to all of North America that also happens to guarantee T.38 gateway support for 100% of calls. Currently, we are using FlowRoute. We are happy with the service, but the odds of us hitting a gateway (through one of their upstreams) that will accept our T.38 re-INVITE are about 50/50...not very good. We tried Gafachi, but that was not a good experience. Their rate table is all kinds of screwed-up. The only other one I've been able to find in my searches is Alcazar Networks. Anybody have any first-hand experience with them who can vouch for them as well as their T.38 support for the wholesale termination product? Other recommendations are also welcome, as well. Although we may someday go down the road of loading an LCR table into our SBC, at this point we are looking for a single solid termination provider that will handle 100% of our outbound call volume (a mix of voice and fax); we can fall-back to FlowRoute as a backup solution if the primary provider goes down. Thanks a million, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana at fsr.com

9 13

New Verizon Gateways?
by paul＠timmins.net Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

They gave out finance team 3 days prior notice..... Eric Wieling <EWieling at nyigc.com> wrote: >Yes. VZB has a nasty habit of deploying new gateways but not telling anyone about them. > >-----Original Message----- >From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Jared Geiger >Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:09 PM >To: VoiceOps >Subject: [VoiceOps] New Verizon Gateways? > >Did VZB add new gateways lately? I've located what I think are all the new IPs, but if someone from Verizon can contact me with the details of the added IPs, I'd be grateful. My account manager is pretty useless. > >Regards, >Jared Geiger > > >_______________________________________________ >VoiceOps mailing list >VoiceOps at voiceops.org >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >

1 0

stunserver.org issues ?
by voiceops-01＠jeremykister.com Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

any admins from stunserver.org (or UNH.edu) around ? i can't find any clear contact info online. either way, is anyone else having trouble talking to the stun server @ stunserver.org ? from several networks i see: IP 10.0.0.3.49981 > 132.177.123.13.3478: UDP, length 20 IP 132.177.123.13 > 10.0.0.3: ICMP 132.177.123.13 udp port 3478 unreachable, length 56 however, ping and http are working fine on the same host. stun also appears to be working fine on other hosts. i wonder if their stund died and no one knows?? :) -- Jeremy Kister http://jeremy.kister.net./

1 0

CNAM issues with Cox Communications
by carlos＠televolve.com Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

They have the worst CNAM system known to man. For years we've had constant struggles to get them to update CNAM even months after we've done an update. And now they seem to be associating random CNAM data with some of our numbers (for their customers, not in the database itself). We are getting customer complaints that when they call Cox customers CNAM is displayed that has absolutely nothing to do with the number sent, now or in the past. So... 1. Anyone know how to get this resolved with Cox? Any contact info? 2. Anyone else seeing this with Cox? 3. Any ideas on how arbitrary information would get associated with numbers in their system? -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003

3 3

verizon peer bounce
by David_Hiers＠adp.com Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Did anyone else see all their verzion peers bounce (one at a time) last night? David 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

New Verizon Gateways?
by jared＠compuwizz.net Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Did VZB add new gateways lately? I've located what I think are all the new IPs, but if someone from Verizon can contact me with the details of the added IPs, I'd be grateful. My account manager is pretty useless. Regards, Jared Geiger

2 1

T.38 termination provider?
by kris＠kriskinc.com Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Recent versions of Asterisk and Freeswitch are also capable of T.38 "gatewaying" (T.30 g711/T.30 interop). However, my guess is that the OP was interested in a pure T.38 path for its perceived reliability. Getting back on topic, you aren't likely to have good fax results from anything but a Tier 1 provider like Level(3). There are just too many LCR shenanigans and who knows what else with anything less. With that being said we've been doing T.38 on Level(3) Vector (Sonus) for over a year. I regularly run loopback tests with multiple geographic and provider diverse PRIs sending/receiving faxes to/from LI and ELS dids on every Level(3) SBC. Sending T.38 faxes to Freeswitch with T.38 regularly results in a %97 success rate. Upon complaining to Level(3) their first suggestion was to switch to ulaw. Keep in mind this is over the public internet. I was skeptical to say the least. Re-running the same tests regularly results in a %98 success rate. We're able to dynamically switch between T.38 and ulaw on a call by call basis. Repeated controlled tests have held with ulaw consistently being about %1 more reliable. My only guess is that T.38, while being more reliable in theory, suffers from implementation bugs like anything else. On a solid connection ulaw is simpler and thus more reliable. On a shaky connection between known endpoints T.38 emerges victorious due to features such as packet redundancy, etc. That's why we still use T.38 down to our ATA devices with great success. Our customer's DSL connections probably couldn't get past tone detection/modem handshake with ulaw. Yes, I really thumbed out this entire message from my BlackBerry near midnight. I've lost way too much sleep from faxing over IP as it is! -- Kristian Kielhofner Sent from a mobile device. ------------------------------ *From*: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *To*: Nathan Anderson <nathana at fsr.com> *Cc*: voiceops at voiceops.org <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Sent*: Mon Dec 12 21:59:10 2011 *Subject*: Re: [VoiceOps] T.38 termination provider? Slightly off topic but from spec sheet the new transcoding NUIs in the low-end ACME SBCs (3820/4500?) in theory can handle T.38 to T.30(ulaw/alaw) interop, so you might be able to 'wrangle' it yourself. -- Peter Childs - Voice Engineer Internode/Agile Ph: 08 8228 2380 Mb: 0406 388 405 Fax: 08 8235 6801 On 13/12/2011, at 12:26 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote: Hello, New to the list. I work for a regional broadband ISP who is looking to also become an ITSP. We are looking for a good SIP termination provider with reasonable rates to all of North America that also happens to guarantee T.38 gateway support for 100% of calls. Currently, we are using FlowRoute. We are happy with the service, but the odds of us hitting a gateway (through one of their upstreams) that will accept our T.38 re-INVITE are about 50/50...not very good. We tried Gafachi, but that was not a good experience. Their rate table is all kinds of screwed-up. The only other one I've been able to find in my searches is Alcazar Networks. Anybody have any first-hand experience with them who can vouch for them as well as their T.38 support for the wholesale termination product? Other recommendations are also welcome, as well. Although we may someday go down the road of loading an LCR table into our SBC, at this point we are looking for a single solid termination provider that will handle 100% of our outbound call volume (a mix of voice and fax); we can fall-back to FlowRoute as a backup solution if the primary provider goes down. Thanks a million, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana at fsr.com _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

5 4

Do Not Call list
by MStappenbeck＠allworx.com Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Does anyone know of a SIP product that will block outbound calls to the PSTN from a PBX, based on a database match? It would need to be loaded with the national registry, as well as allow the end user to load numbers themselves. This could reside on a local server, or out in the cloud. Not quite a predictive dialer, since the end user will dial the number from the handset themselves, and receive an appropriate recording notifying them if the number dialed matched a "blocked" number. Thanks for any help -Mark S

6 7