- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

MARTINI: why it matters to Voice over IP service providers -- and why we want YOU to attend the Virtual Interim on February 9, 2010
by bernard_aboba＠hotmail.com Feb. 2, 2010

Feb. 2, 2010

The IETF MARTINI WG has been chartered to standardize an important aspect of SIP trunking: multiple AOR registration. This is not one of those ?we?ll deliver a standard when we?re good and ready? working groups. This WG is aiming to deliver a single standard solution that can displace the myriad of adhoc ?implicit registration? approaches that exist today. The goal is to change SIP trunking forever, or die trying. Not 5 years from now, not 2 years from now, but NOW. MARTINI will hold its third virtual Interim (yup, three 2.5+ hour interims in a period of 4 weeks) on February 9, 2010. If you are a Voice over IP service provider, and you care about the future of SIP trunking, then you need to attend MARTINI Virtual Interim III, or lose your whining rights, forever. The strawman agenda and the conference parameter details are available here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini/current/msg00466.html Presentations and minutes from the previous virtual interims are available here: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/MARTINI/ The IETF MARTINI WG: not another half-baked standards working group that nobody cares about. Bernard Aboba Co-Chair, IETF MARTINI WG http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/martini-charter.html

1 0

Full global country/city list similar to NANPA list
by carlos＠televolve.com Feb. 2, 2010

Feb. 2, 2010

Is there such a thing? Country code City Rate center or equivalent

8 23

Explaining router/NAT problems to customers
by carlos＠televolve.com Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

For those of you who do VoIP services with bring your own internet, I wonder if you have some tips on how to explain to customers that it's their network/router that is causing phones to randomly unregister? I know that from their perspective it's the phone that is broken and we need to fix it. Particularly the less technical ones that really don't even get the fact that these "phones" are just internet devices. Yes, I understand this is why we "shouldn't" offer BYOI, but we do, and will continue to do so for small customers. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified

5 7

Explaining router/NAT problems to customers
by jw＠jasper.us Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

I'd start by having the customers disable SIP fixup/ALG functionality on their router. I've seen this cause intermittent registration issues in addition to other issues. This feature is enabled by default on Cisco routers and does not show in the running config unless disabled. -Jason Warner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Alvarez" <carlos at televolve.com> To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:44:25 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [VoiceOps] Explaining router/NAT problems to customers For those of you who do VoIP services with bring your own internet, I wonder if you have some tips on how to explain to customers that it's their network/router that is causing phones to randomly unregister? I know that from their perspective it's the phone that is broken and we need to fix it. Particularly the less technical ones that really don't even get the fact that these "phones" are just internet devices. Yes, I understand this is why we "shouldn't" offer BYOI, but we do, and will continue to do so for small customers. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Porting to Level3
by mylists＠battleop.com Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

Is it common practice for Level3 to port numbers when they feel like it on the FOC date? Do they not let you call in and let them know you are ready for the port? I have never had this happen with a carrier before and don't know if it was the SIP Carrier or Level3 that did this. Richey

4 4

Call Recording Laws in the US
by jay＠west.net Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Peter Beckman wrote: > So I've been thinking about call recording laws recently and wanted to get > some feedback. > > 1. As an ITSP, are we held liable for enabling our customers to > potentially illegally record a phone call in states where all-party > notification is required? Or is it solely on the party who did the > illegal recording? I'm not a lawyer, but if "enabling" is illegal then everyone working at Radio Shack should be in jail. http://tinyurl.com/ylg62tb > 2. Interstate phone calls get tricky -- it may be legal for > single-party notification in the originating or terminating > state, but > illegal in the other. Yep. > 3. When a California resident has a California phone number (a state > which requires all-party notification and consent of call recording) > receives a call when physically in Oregon, which law applies -- CA > or OR? Assuming the caller is in a single-party consent state. Again not a lawyer but I seem to recall that FCC trumps local laws here. -- 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

5 5

CommPartners
by peter＠4isps.com Jan. 24, 2010

Jan. 24, 2010

On LinkedIn someone is having issues with CP. Commpartners VOIP - BUSY Signals I have several number in Florida i am trying to call using my Commpartners VOIP service, that are not working. There are others in the call center industry that are using Compartners that are experiencing the same issue. It seems that this is affecting customers out of the Las Vegas NOC. Some of the areas affected. 813-915-xxxx 813-598-xxxx 407-348-xxxx 859-727-xxxx My dedicated customer service person is reporting this issue but Compartners does not seem to be resolving it. Are there any other Compartner users out there (out of the Vegas NOC) that are experiencing the same thing? Or, does anyone have any contacts that may be able to help? http://www.linkedin.com/answers?dfwi=&questionID=620048&askerID=27560197&go…

1 0

Cisco 7940s dialplan
by ujjval＠simplesignal.com Jan. 18, 2010

Jan. 18, 2010

We are seeing some Cisco 7940s autodial a "$" sign after being offhook for about 4-5 secs, They are running 8-12 load and downloading all the config files from our config server, Anyone has a remedy for that. Its driving me nuts...

3 6

SBC and routing solutions
by blair＠fx.net.nz Jan. 14, 2010

Jan. 14, 2010

Hi Guys, I'm wondering if the list can help me out a bit, just looking for some ideas really. I have been messing about with this voip stuff for years, but got given an actual network to manage last year, and trying to figure out the best way to clean it up. I really need some community input on Best-Practice for a few design/architectural ideas - Probably stuff you take for granted, but for small fry like me it's difficult to get my head around having not really done this stuff before :) Currently I run a small voip network comprised of some SER boxes with custom modules for accounting and authentication, a couple of AS5300 gateways, and a SIP interconnect with our primary upstream. I'm trying to envision what would be needed to add a little more functionality to this network, and potentially simplify provisioning, accounting and debugging. We have no SBC in the network currently, and just pass SIP packets around, with media flowing either directly to/from the 5300s or to the upstream's SBC. This presents us with problems if we want to add another upstream, we need to get the customers to update their ACLs, and if we want to translate numbers or mess with SIP packets, SER is not really very good at that. I've been talking with ACME about some 3800s as an SBC, but I'm not really sure whether they could take over the full functionality of the current network, and whether I'd need to get some custom management interfaces written to manage route tables etc on the ACME, or if the inbuilt interfaces are good-enough. I guess my question comes in really the form of experience with similar situations - I know a lot of you out there have ACME SBCs in place, do you use it to authenticate sessions directly with the customers, or do you generally have some kind of soft switch sitting in front handling all of that? If so, what kind of soft switches are you running for small volumes of calls - I don't want to be paying $100k for something that OpenSIPS is probably capable of with a little custom development (or can it do everything off-the-shelf these days?) Also wondering CDR wise, at what point in your network do you pull your CDRs and generate bills from- the ACME will create radius start/stop records, but can it attach billing information to those radius records or am I going to have to bolt something on the end of that as well? Wondering rate-table wise if it is best to have a central table somewhere which gets used for generating billing info, and if you have some kind of interface your customers can check current rates? I guess just looking for people who have done this before, what have you found that works and what doesn't, so I can avoid it and save myself some time going down a dead-end road :) Thanks for any assistance, and offlist replies are of course welcome. Sorry for the slightly all-over-the place questions too. Regards, Blair Harrison

1 0

Call Recording Laws in the US
by beckman＠angryox.com Jan. 13, 2010

Jan. 13, 2010

So I've been thinking about call recording laws recently and wanted to get some feedback. 1. As an ITSP, are we held liable for enabling our customers to potentially illegally record a phone call in states where all-party notification is required? Or is it solely on the party who did the illegal recording? 2. Interstate phone calls get tricky -- it may be legal for single-party notification in the originating or terminating state, but illegal in the other. 3. When a California resident has a California phone number (a state which requires all-party notification and consent of call recording) receives a call when physically in Oregon, which law applies -- CA or OR? Assuming the caller is in a single-party consent state. Makes things kinda difficult -- I guess it is simply easier for the ITSP to say "hey, you can record, but follow the laws." and hope we don't get mixed up in it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3