With DECT base stations typically handling 5 or more SIP accounts, and handsets, what does everyone prefer to install?
1 base station/ 1 handset per Extension
OR
1 base station, and 5 handsets/extensions?
In other words, does anyone have any issues with having multiple extensions/accounts on 1 base station? I know it can be done, but just wondering if it is cleaner to have 1 base per handset, or if that is overkill.
The other piece of the chain here is of course, the VPS provider that I'm using. I'm on the east coast, my VPS is in Milwaulkee, connecting to a Vitelity server, which appears to be in Colorado. I'm evaluating the idea of testing another local VPS provider closer to me. (Vultr for example)
I heard back from Vitelity. I sent them a packet capture from a cell phone to the PBX (inbound) Their response below.
"I do see some jitter from us to you and some packets out of sequence. We could try moving your account to direct media where the RTP will come directly from the carrier to you, bypassing our system. You might need to open up any restrictive firewall rules in that case as the RTP would come from other sources."
Is that common? Has anyone else had to go down this route with Vitelity or any other carrier?
Testing today, an outbound call to a cell phone was perfect for the duration of the 5 min call.
I'm working with one of their NOC techs now. I sent them some packet captures to see if it sheds any light on anything for them. I went through the captures and see a few re-transmissions, but nothing that jumps out at me right away.
I did at 8 AM this morning, but no response yet. I just used their support email instead of going through their portal. Perhaps they dont like that. I'm writing a ticket right now through their portal to see what happens.
Also, do you do anything specific in your firewall rules such as whitelisting the Vitelity IPs?
@Minion-Queen said in Vitelity issues?:
They were doing some Maintenance last night, we got emails about that the other day.
Yeah, I got that email yesterday too. But this started yesterday around 4:30 PM EST, before their maintenance window.
Is anyone having issues with call quality with Vitelity? Every so often, like last evening and right now, we have some jitter on our calls. PBX is hosted, but specs look fine with plenty of room to spare. Response time (via ping only) from PBX server to Vitelity trunk IP is also well within what I consider to be acceptable range. (below 40ms)
@JaredBusch said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
@fuznutz04 said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
@travisdh1 said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
@fuznutz04 said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
Bingo. Just as I was reading your reply, I remembered that I had previously setup a .htaccess redirect to auto redirect 80 to 443 just to ensure that nobody tries to manage the box thorugh port 80. I disabled that temporarily and it worked right away. The cert is only valid for 3 months. Do you know if this will auto renew via the cert manager in FreePBX, or is it a manual process?
Thanks!
You can automate it, but you need to do some work to make it happen. Looks like the new certbot-auto makes it way easier. In your case I'd do a small script to open port 80, do the renewal, and reapply the security settings. The renewal is REALLY easy now, this is the crontab entry I'm using for it.
@weekly /path/certbot-auto renew -qNice. I'll give that a shot. I also temporarily added the outbound1.letsencrypt.org, outbound2.letsencrypt.org, mirror1.freepbx.org, mirror2.freepbx.org domains to the trusted zone in the responsive firewall. Then removed them afterwards since these are needed to get the cert. I guess I could also just write some firewall rules instead. Is anyone else doing this?
Why do you want your PBX open to the public internet? Do your users actually use the UCP?
No, they don't. We need to have it open as it is hosted elsewhere.
@travisdh1 said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
@fuznutz04 said in FreePBX, SelfSigned Certs, & Let's Encrypt:
Bingo. Just as I was reading your reply, I remembered that I had previously setup a .htaccess redirect to auto redirect 80 to 443 just to ensure that nobody tries to manage the box thorugh port 80. I disabled that temporarily and it worked right away. The cert is only valid for 3 months. Do you know if this will auto renew via the cert manager in FreePBX, or is it a manual process?
Thanks!
You can automate it, but you need to do some work to make it happen. Looks like the new certbot-auto makes it way easier. In your case I'd do a small script to open port 80, do the renewal, and reapply the security settings. The renewal is REALLY easy now, this is the crontab entry I'm using for it.
@weekly /path/certbot-auto renew -q
Nice. I'll give that a shot. I also temporarily added the outbound1.letsencrypt.org, outbound2.letsencrypt.org, mirror1.freepbx.org, mirror2.freepbx.org domains to the trusted zone in the responsive firewall. Then removed them afterwards since these are needed to get the cert. I guess I could also just write some firewall rules instead. Is anyone else doing this?
Bingo. Just as I was reading your reply, I remembered that I had previously setup a .htaccess redirect to auto redirect 80 to 443 just to ensure that nobody tries to manage the box thorugh port 80. I disabled that temporarily and it worked right away. The cert is only valid for 3 months. Do you know if this will auto renew via the cert manager in FreePBX, or is it a manual process?
Thanks!
Well, this is driving me insane. I have a FreePBX box with a self signed cert. I was able to access the box fine from my Macbook with both Safari and Chrome. With Chrome, I just your standard "your connection is not private, and then the option to proceed anyway. However, a co-worker of mine needed to connect via his Windows 10 box, and he cant. from my Windows VM, neither can I. Chrome gives a "NET::ERR_CERT_INVALID" error and "You cannot visit pbx.domain.com right now because the website sent scrambled credentials that Google Chrome cannot process." with no option to proceed. That's issue number 1 that I'd like to get working.
As an alternative, FreePBX now has Let's Encrypt functionality build right into the cert manager. So, I gave that a shot. For the host name, I put in the proper DNS name of my PBX box (pbx.domain.com) An A record was already created at my registrar for this DNS name/IP. I get the error "There was an error updating the certificate: Token did not match"
Any suggestions for either problem?
Thanks!
@fuznutz04 It is a nerd thing. I have been putting in Unifi systems at my friends businesses. I would like a more extensive firewall device. The edge router platform is nice but not as nice as a sophos utm. I would like to get a hold of a AmpLifi system to give it a swing and see what kind of features it has.
I haven't played with the Sophos UTMs at all, but for the price of the ERX ($100), you can't go wrong. Some places (specifically my house) wouldn't need all the extra tools available in a UTM device. They definitely have their place though in some businesses.
This looks pretty cool. I really like their EdgeMax line and their Unifi line of products. I updated my house to and ERX and a Unifi AC access point about 2-3 months ago and have never looked back. No more restarts of the wifi router, or any other hiccups. Plus, the Unifi units have cool style points for the blue glowing ring. My wife doesn't appreciate it as much as I do. "Must be a nerd thing" she says.
also, side bar: i hate typing on a tablet touch screen.
So after i posted that last comment, i did some more research on xen and Vmware and learned what you were just talking about. i couldnt post back fast enough to correct myself. 
it was the shell that threw me off regarding vmware. i assumed it was a variant of linux. of coure, we know what happens when you assume.
@JaredBusch said in Hyper-V Management from Mac/Linux:
@fuznutz04 5Nine has a solution for Windows, but I do not know of any solution for any other OS at this point.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've looked at those guys before. They look decent, but the fact is, I don't really need anything else besides the built in Hyper-V Manager tools. I've run a Hyper-V cluster with 5 nodes and 2 SANs in a past job, with nothing more than Hyper-V Manager and Cluster Fail-over Manager. Their free tools are really outstanding IMHO.
The real shame here is that I wouldn't even consider moving to another HyperVisor, since I am very comfortable with Hyper-V, but the fact that they dont allow for easy administration via another OS is a little frustrating. Actually, I take part one of the previous sentence back....I would still test out Xen because I need to see if the grass is really greener, and obsessively learning new tech is a disease I have.
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V Management from Mac/Linux:
@fuznutz04 said in Hyper-V Management from Mac/Linux:
I haven't tried Xen yet.
It's incredibly easy, easier than Hyper-V for me in general and definitely easier if you don't have Microsoft's tools in use all over the place. XO is totally free and there is no need whatsoever to use the paid version, that's just advertising and not a factor. Yes, paying for it is great and you can support the project, so totally considering paying for it, but there is zero need to do so. Especially just to get started, pay later when it has saved you lots of money over Hyper-V.
I'm going to have to give Xen a try on a spare server. I've heard such good about it over the past few months, and if it has easy management tools like VMWare does, that I can manage easily from a non-Windows OS, then it's worth a look. I haven't even started to look into Xen yet...Is it based on a "port" of Linux like VMWare is?
I do like the interface of VMWare, and the ability for web access. However, I'm not willing to spring for the cost at this point. Although small, I just don't see any value in spending for something that has free alternatives with almost the same value points.
I haven't tried Xen yet. If there are not good alternatives, I will just stick with another Windows VM on the host server, or on a separate box to manage Hyper-V. It is disappointing however that MS does not offer something like what I'm looking for. Perhaps that will come in the future though, as it seems that MS is at least starting to play nicer with non MS products/technologies.
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V Management from Mac/Linux:
The use of the multiple windows MMCs is what drove me away from Hyper-V.
What did you move to? Xen?
I should add... I'm looking for something similar to what VMWare does with remote web administration with VSphere Web Access.