- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Which Softswitch?
by Greg＠thesummitgroup.com.au June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Hi All, We are in the process of going down the path of deploying our own Softswitch infrastructure to transition away from purchasing from SIP Trunk providers and moving to getting CTS direct from VoIP Carriers. There seems to be a lot of solutions out on the market and weeding out the "Built on Asterisk" / "Built on Freeswitch" with little or no support vs Commercial Supported solutions is proving to be difficult. There are the "leaders" (or strong marketing companies) such as Broadsoft & Metaswitch - but what I am trying to uncover is what else is great out there that may not have the exposure but is worth looking at. What we are looking for... 1. Class 4 Softswitch 2. Geographical Redundancy (Active - Active) 3. Preferably not built on Freeswitch or Asterisk (Not saying they're bad just tired of OpenSource for Core products) 4. Must have commercial support available (preferably during Australian hours) 5. Windows or Linux doesn't phase us - we have skill set on both platforms. Happy to hear the good, the bad, the ugly, the war stories so that we can get some real world feedback on what's out there, what works, what doesn't and hopefully not make the same mistakes that others have already made. Offlist replies are perfectly fine if you don't wish to discuss on-list. Thanks in advance and enjoy the rest of your weekend! :) Cheers, Greg Greg Lipschitz | Director | The Summit Group E: Greg at thesummitgroup.com.au W: www.thesummitgroup.com.au The Summit Group (Australia) Pty Ltd | P: 1300 049 749 | Level 1, 39 Railway Road, Blackburn VIC 3130 The Summit Group (USA) LLC | P: 321 216 3844 | Suite 561, 40E Main Street, Newmark DE 19711 Postal: P.O. Box 3225, Doncaster East VIC 3109

14 25

Linux GRE Keepalive
by paul＠timmins.net June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

For those using software implementations that wanted to use GRE keepalives with a Cisco Router on the far end, I made a thing. https://github.com/PaulTimmins/linux-gre-keepalive -Paul

1 0

Fast LNP Porting
by mike＠astrocompanies.com June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Yes, understood. However, most ports today do not qualify under these conditions. Accounts are often wholesale, so it?s not a single line. Some LECs now throw in extra services that the end-user may not even know about, such as a toll-free number, so that it?s not a ?single line only? account. Many ILECs now will not sell a single-line only at retail; they force a bundle of some kind sometimes without the end user?s knowledge. AT&T Bellsouth is a master of this, pricing their single line at over 90.00/mo, well above the cost of the bundle that includes that line. All of those tactics combine to mean that very few ports are actually simple anymore from an intercarrier perspective. Regards, Mike Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE Astro Companies, LLC 11523 Palm Brush Trail #401 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 DIRECT: 941 600-0207 http://www.astrocompanies.com From: Frank Bulk [mailto:fbulk at mypremieronline.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:07 AM To: 'Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE'; 'Colton Conor' Cc: 'Voiceops.org' Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Fast LNP Porting The FCC?s current definition for a Simple Ports is as follows: * Do not involve unbundled network elements * Involves an account only for a single line * Do not include complex switch translations (e.g., Centrex, ISDN, AIN services, remote call forwarding, or multiple services on the loop) * Do not include a reseller Regards, Frank From: Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE [mailto:mike at astrocompanies.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 12:26 AM To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Colton Conor' Cc: 'Voiceops.org' Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Fast LNP Porting We are directly connected to the NPAC and do all of our own native porting in house as well as porting for others. It?s important to note that virtually all non-wireless carriers these days have various excuses for why no port is ever simple anymore, to get around the one-day porting rule. It used to be, a single number porting made it a simple port. Not true anymore; you can pretty much count on any non-wireless port being considered complex from an LNP perspective. We can generally still get it done in 3 to 5 business days, but you have to be very organized and know what the specific requirements of each carrier are before you submit the order to them. Mike Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE Astro Companies, LLC 11523 Palm Brush Trail #401 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 DIRECT: 941 600-0207 http://www.astrocompanies.com From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 12:57 AM To: 'Calvin Ellison'; Colton Conor Cc: Voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Fast LNP Porting Also want to note the simple versus complex port aspect, too. https://www.npac.com/number-portability/how-lnp-works ?Even providers who use manual processes, if there are no errors or issues with validations, and it is a simple port, the FCC has mandated that the request be completed within one business day.? Frank From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Calvin Ellison Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:34 AM To: Colton Conor Cc: Voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Fast LNP Porting Porting requires concurrence from the losing carrier to complete, which ultimately happens as an LRN update in the NPAC. Companies with direct access to NPAC can do this the quickest, otherwise they contract with an AOCN to handle the NPAC or use a bigger carrier, which can add delays. So long as you have the correct LSR information when submitting the port, concurrence should happen within a day. Ultimately the losing and gaining carriers both contribute to the turnaround time. Check out our wholesale services. We can do porting for voice, toll free and SMS. On Jun 15, 2015 9:13 AM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor at gmail.com <mailto:colton.conor at gmail.com> > wrote: Is there some way to port numbers extremely fast away from major landline providers like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc? I met someone long ago that said they were able to port a number from anywhere in like one business day. If I remember right they mentioned something about being a cellular CLEC or something similar. I know porting in the cellular world is a same day kind of thing, but why not on the landline side? Is there some wholesaler out there that doesn't charge and arm and leg to port numbers? _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Toll Free - Strange CPN
by mwiles＠akabis.com June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Good morning all, Anyone seeing a large influx of inbound toll-free calls with strange calling party numbers? such as +669? usually having 11-13 digits? Thanks! Mark

1 0

Fast LNP Porting
by colton.conor＠gmail.com June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Is there some way to port numbers extremely fast away from major landline providers like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc? I met someone long ago that said they were able to port a number from anywhere in like one business day. If I remember right they mentioned something about being a cellular CLEC or something similar. I know porting in the cellular world is a same day kind of thing, but why not on the landline side? Is there some wholesaler out there that doesn't charge and arm and leg to port numbers?

6 9

SimpleWAN
by shripald＠gmail.com June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Hello all, i'm wondering if anyone on the list has had any dealing with SimpleWAN? They sell a little Firewall with cloud-based provisioning a nice management portal. thanks in advance. shri

4 5

No RTP stream during 183 w/SDP via Peerless?
by april＠teliax.com June 5, 2015

June 5, 2015

Hi all, I'm seeing a rash of calls this week, egressing Peerless, with no RTP stream during 183. First it looked like multiple vendors (or a CPE issue) but checking SDP, calls exhibiting the behavior are originating from Peerless. Calls will receive a 183 Progress w/SDP, then 200 OK w/SDP, but no RBT or media is heard during the 183. Tickets are being opened with Peerless (and other ULCs who are using Peerless) but I'm curious if this is being observed elsewhere...

5 8

SIP 404 Not Found vs 603 Decline
by beckman＠angryox.com June 3, 2015

June 3, 2015

I offer a feature to our customers that allows them to configure their DID to respond with "This number is disconnected" message for specific, annoying callers, based on their CallerID. Some customers send a Busy signal (486 BUSY) for these annoying callers. It seems that some Robocallers will retry numbers that ring busy repeatedly, sometimes annoyingly aggressively. I'm switching the default to declining the call, which brings me to which SIP response is correct and/or ideal. >From the RFC: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt Section 21.4.5 404 Not Found The server has definitive information that the user does not exist at the domain specified in the Request-URI. This status is also returned if the domain in the Request-URI does not match any of the domains handled by the recipient of the request. Section 21.6.2 603 Decline The callee's machine was successfully contacted but the user explicitly does not wish to or cannot participate. The response MAY indicate a better time to call in the Retry-After header field. This status response is returned only if the client knows that no other end point will answer the request. We are currently sending a 603 Decline, which seems appropriate given the nature. However we also get calls to numbers we service which are not active, in which case 404 Not Found seems more appropriate. What is the real-world behavior of the calling party for these responses? If I change the cause code, will there be unintended consequences? Any suggestions or experience is appreciated. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5

Calls to Verizion Failing
by tim.donahue＠gmail.com May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Hi all, We have a client complaining that calls to the 818 area code are failing with a "No circuits available" message. The only common link we have found is the calls are terminating over our Verizon Wholesale trunk. We have other calls completing without issue across the rest of the country. I don't know why Verizon would be generating an audible error message instead of sending us a SIP 503 error code so we could progress on to another carrier, which is what we have always seen them do in the past. Is anyone else seeing a similar behavior on Verizon? Tim Donahue

3 3

Verizon all circuits busy
by peeip989＠gmail.com May 14, 2015

May 14, 2015

Anyone having any issues with "all circuits busy" messages, specifically to Verizon DIDs? We are hearing complaints of this, primarily from wireless callers and (I think) mostly east coast. Our trunks with VZ look normal, but was just wondering if maybe there is a capacity issue between wireless and wireline, or if this problem may be isolated to us (or to our region -- Philly metro). Thanks, Pete

3 3