Best PBX Software?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So what makes your chosen solution the correct solution? Just because it's always been the way you've used/sold it doesn't make it right
Most power and flexibility, lowest overhead, universally accepted as the right answer, no known downsides, all upsides
What makes anything else a consideration? While you can "make do" with lesser solutions, what's their upside?
The upside is that when someone is sitting at their desk, they don't have to call someone then transfer them to a conference bridge, then call the next person and do the same, etc.. and finally join the bridge themselves.
While I will admit that I'm probably in a more rare situation, our schedulers make conference calls randomly all day long. They can be on with a patient, a hospital, and two dr's offices.
With these calls happening randomly, it's not reasonable to call those places and say - hey here's the conference bridge, hang up and dial in for me, would ya? and doing the above stated.. call patient, transfer them to bridge, call hospital transfer, call dr 1 transfer, call dr 2 transfer, finally join conference bridge... damn what a huge PITA.I'm sure it's just that this particular situation doesn't happen much outside of medical - who knows.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
Because it is a switch and instead of communicating through the switch you are making the phone a switch but need every call to go through the first switch. So you are duplicating everything. Just picture the call route, how else would it be possible? The phone isn't going to take calls directly, right?
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Does it matter? Not really, but there is a reason why it is more powerful. Call recording works properly, everything takes less work, there is less network traffic, it performs better, sounds better, has more features.
Like I asked before, since it's all upsides, why do something else?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Does it matter? Not really, but there is a reason why it is more powerful. Call recording works properly, everything takes less work, there is less network traffic, it performs better, sounds better, has more features.
Like I asked before, since it's all upsides, why do something else?
Because you ignored the reason that I posted why we do it the way we do it.
-
@Dashrender said:
The upside is that when someone is sitting at their desk, they don't have to call someone then transfer them to a conference bridge, then call the next person and do the same, etc.. and finally join the bridge themselves.
I don't see the upside. It sounds good when described that way, but are there fewer button presses that way than using a conference bridge? But is the gained business functionality if it is transparent to the users?
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+n-way+call+HOWTO
-
@Dashrender said:
Because you ignored the reason that I posted why we do it the way we do it.
I didn't mean to, it just seemed like a stretch since nothing in your description was different between the two options, or did I miss something? How is it less work to call someone and add them to a local conference than to call someone and add them to a central one? All the same steps in both cases, right? Where is the benefit?
-
@Dashrender said:
...and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Just because you can waste internal resources without causing a problem, unless there is a benefit, why add the overhead and limitations?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The upside is that when someone is sitting at their desk, they don't have to call someone then transfer them to a conference bridge, then call the next person and do the same, etc.. and finally join the bridge themselves.
I don't see the upside. It sounds good when described that way, but are there fewer button presses that way than using a conference bridge? But is the gained business functionality if it is transparent to the users?
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+n-way+call+HOWTO
That's really cool.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Because you ignored the reason that I posted why we do it the way we do it.
I didn't mean to, it just seemed like a stretch since nothing in your description was different between the two options, or did I miss something? How is it less work to call someone and add them to a local conference than to call someone and add them to a central one? All the same steps in both cases, right? Where is the benefit?
The steps for conference bridge (on the PBX)
Call Outside 1, press transfer, dial bridge number (assume 4 digits), his transfer again
Assuming the phone numbers themselves are all equal, this would take 6 key presses per person you call
lastly, you'd have to call the conference bridge yourself, dial 4 digits.So for 4 outside callers, you have to press 28 keys (not counting the numbers of the outside numbers)
Steps for conference (on local phone)
Call Outside 1, press conference, call outside 2, press conference,
press conference, call outside 3, press conference,
press conference, call outside 4, press conference,This requires 6 key presses, and little to no chance of sending someone to the wrong conference bridge.
-
@Dashrender said:
The steps for conference bridge (on the PBX)
Call Outside 1, press transfer, dial bridge number (assume 4 digits), his transfer again
Assuming the phone numbers themselves are all equal, this would take 6 key presses per person you call
lastly, you'd have to call the conference bridge yourself, dial 4 digits.Ah, so what I am hearing is the conference bridge was not configured and you are judging the technology based on the implementation.
I can do that all without any need to dial anything, so that's not a good example of what a conference bridge system is like.
Sounds like your Mitel just isn't up to snuff if it requires that and you are using a kludge to get around a hobbled system.
-
Did you follow the link about using the conference bridge to call people directly?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Did you follow the link about using the conference bridge to call people directly?
I missed that post I guess, and now I'm leaving to drive to Chicago.. might have a beer with JB tonight.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Sounds like your Mitel just isn't up to snuff if it requires that and you are using a kludge to get around a hobbled system.
Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. I have no idea if the Mitel can have a one button transfer to a conference bridge (more likely two button, conference and the conference location).
As for the setup, I've never used a setup with a one button transfer to a conference bridge, so I couldn't reference it. I learned something
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Sounds like your Mitel just isn't up to snuff if it requires that and you are using a kludge to get around a hobbled system.
Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. I have no idea if the Mitel can have a one button transfer to a conference bridge (more likely two button, conference and the conference location).
As for the setup, I've never used a setup with a one button transfer to a conference bridge, so I couldn't reference it. I learned something
So if you haven't used the one button transfer, and you have a Mitel, is it because you've just not bothered to use it, even though it was the driver that brought you to the Mitel, or do you feel that the Mitel is not up to snuff? Or is there a third option I am missing?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Sounds like your Mitel just isn't up to snuff if it requires that and you are using a kludge to get around a hobbled system.
Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. I have no idea if the Mitel can have a one button transfer to a conference bridge (more likely two button, conference and the conference location).
As for the setup, I've never used a setup with a one button transfer to a conference bridge, so I couldn't reference it. I learned something
So if you haven't used the one button transfer, and you have a Mitel, is it because you've just not bothered to use it, even though it was the driver that brought you to the Mitel, or do you feel that the Mitel is not up to snuff? Or is there a third option I am missing?
The company was using Inter-Tel (bought my Mitel) when I joined the company. Conferencing at the phone level I'm sure was not why they went with Inter-Tel - it's just a feature they discovered and continued to use.
