@gjacobse said in VitalPBX hosting for very small group:
@gjacobse said in VitalPBX hosting for very small group:
For just three? I might actually just suggest something more like 8x8 - Do you really need a full PBX for just three phone?
Yes, I do recognize that 8x8 costs more per user then a PBX hosted on say Vultr - ...
Not for 3 people it doesn’t. Unless you are set and forgetting it.
@brandon220 said in New PBX - Which one?:
This new instance would have approximately 2 phone numbers, 8 extensions (includes 2 door phones), and at least 3 physical locations. The phones will be Polycom as that is what they already have.
For 8 users, I would look at Ring Central's Essential plan.
Especially if the 2 door devices can be non-user extensions. Because then it is only 6.
$20/u/month * 8 = $160/u/month *12 months = $1920/year all in since you already have the phones.
$20/u/month * 6 = $120/u/month *12 months = $1440/year all in since you already have the phones.
On a 1 year buy in, I could offer them a fully supported FreePBX install for $12.50/u/m + Service (metered billing on Skyetel) for the 6 real users. Monthly it is $15/u/m + Service. So $900 or $1080/year.
@brandon220 said in New PBX - Which one?:
These are not dry pair.
Yes they are, because:
@brandon220 said in New PBX - Which one?:
They are originating in an Ericsson AXE switch.
Their PBX is providing the dialtone OUT to the OPX at the remote site over the dry pair.
@dashrender said in Is VOIP.MS down?:
I found them on Twitter their service provider is being attacked right now. It appears that they only have one DNS host. Sigh
They posted the IP of the servers for you to change things.
https://twitter.com/voipms/status/1438543881491132424
@pete-s said in Is VOIP.MS down?:
@jaredbusch said in Is VOIP.MS down?:
Already started the port out process.
What does that mean Jared? That you're moving (porting) the numbers to another provider?
Yes. This outage is not the reason, but it did accelerate the timeline.
This was the last client that I active support day to day that used VoIP.ms as their primary provider. It was previously planned to migrate in October after another project was completed.
@pete-s said in ATA sp112 behind Sonicwall to Skyetel:
One difference between different providers can be if they're using tcp or udp. I believe tcp is the newer standard so old devices might not support it.
WTF
Just because you don’t know what you’re talking about does not mean you should talk out of your ass. TCP was part of the original RFC
@braswelljay said in Anyone know of current Skyetel Promo codes ?:
I'm wanting to port ~50 DIDs to Skyetel.
Does anyone have any promo codes that might get some relief on the port in fee?
Contact your rep for that
@jaredbusch said in Anyone know of current Skyetel Promo codes ?:
Contact your rep for that
@skyetel said in Anyone know of current Skyetel Promo codes ?:
60F85B623E
Good till Saturday.
Or the President will casually drop a code.
@dashrender said in Is VOIP.MS down?:
@dashrender said in Is VOIP.MS down?:
I've started another set of ports this morning.. they are going much slower than the previous rounds.
uh - maybe not... I just called one of them.. and it's in the new carrier's log.. so looks like that port is already done - just no paperwork to me yet.
If the new carrier is Skyetel and you are making a test call from Skyetel, it will route prior to port.
This is really the same for any carrier. Once it is listed in their network, calls on their network will use it.
@pete-s said in Is it XYZ considered secure?:
So if you have bought ESU I assume Windows 7 is still secure?
If the only criteria for "Secure" is that it is receiving updates? Then yes. I know that is one of the criteria for some of those compliance acronyms.
@pete-s said in Is XYZ considered secure?:
@jaredbusch said in Is XYZ considered secure?:
@pete-s said in Is XYZ considered secure?:
How about devices that are primarily considered hardware:
Not under the criteria about the OS, no. Under other criteria in the compliance? Maybe.
Yes, I was thinking in terms of security compliance. Under whatever acronym applicable.
Don't know enough about it so my questions are perhaps not framed properly.
Right, it simply depends on what each compliance requires.
I’m not marking this solved yet. Because I removed the cumulative update over the weekend and things are working. But I also didn’t change my updated GPO back. For now, users are working.
I will set a maintenance window for next weekend to reapply it and validate things.
So this morning, no one on RDS had printers again.
WTF..
So I manually added a printer direclty on the RDS server (not from the Print Server (the DC)). IT showed up immediately on all users and was able to be printed to.
So I manually added all the printers direct. Issues resolved for the moment.
FFS Microsoft...
@eleceng said in What are your thoughts on Using Zerotier as VPN to highly secure networks.:
What are your thoughts on Using Zerotier as a VPN to highly secure networks?
It cannot do it. Because ZeroTier is not a VPN.
@jasgot said in What are your thoughts on Using Zerotier as VPN to highly secure networks.:
How will you be configuring access to the network assets and resources? Devices at the other end of a VPN are only as secure as their environment. Be sure to consider all protections before making your decision.
While 100% true and important to consider, ZeroTier has a very flexible rules engine that will let you be very specific as to what traffic flows over it.
When COVID lockdowns hit, I simply added a new group and let that group only get RDP over ZeroTier, while others with company controlled laptops still got file sharing.
Emailed instructions on how to install ZT on their home shit, I installed it on the work desktop, and hten sent them instructions on how to RDP.
@eleceng said in Move VM Back and Froth From Workstation to ESXI:
I understand there are a lot of ways to convert and move around but this needs to be moved very frequently
This entire thing seems insane.
I can think of no business case for this kind of requirement.
@dashrender said in hot potato workers:
@jaredbusch said in hot potato workers:
@dashrender said in hot potato workers:
@jaredbusch said in hot potato workers:
@dashrender said in hot potato workers:
This also solves the Lastpass situation, as once it's setup under the shared user, it should just remain there.
But it won't be logged in to the right user.
Browser sessions won't be the right user.
Just an all around bad idea.
LP will be set to log out upon the browser closing -
There's only so much I can do for the users - They have to log out of Outlook, they have to log out of athena - they need to close the browser or log out of LP... so that's really not a big concern in my mind.
IF - IF they can log out those things.. this is not an issue. tons of places use shared computers with the full expectation that once you are done YOU will log out when finished to prevent the next person getting access to your crap.
Force Edge to always use porn mode. That should help.
that helps as long as the browser is closed when the user is finished -
Fixes the issues you raised, which are also user management issues.
So simply make the policy close the fucking browser.
@dashrender said in hot potato workers:
@jaredbusch said in hot potato workers:
@obsolesce said in hot potato workers:
@dashrender said in hot potato workers:
@jaredbusch said in hot potato workers:
@obsolesce said in hot potato workers:
TL:DR entire thread, but why not disable fast user switching? That would force the user to have to log out if anything.
Completely forgot about that.
Can a normal user force log off a logged on user if the screen is locked?nope.
You could turn on auditing for logon/logoff events, then run a logoff script when the lock event triggers if that's an issue.
Lock is a normal event though when a user walks away and is coming back. Forcing a log off would be a huge productivity sink
Not if you look at the case above where I said that Lock is completely unusable because of the shared account.
Yes, but what is the user impact to a log on event multiple times per day?
Not saying it is the wrong solution, but this type of issue needs to be resolved around a solution that is the least impactful to user productivity while still meeting the security and technical requirements.
@Skyetel said in Setting up a Skyetel SIP trunk in FreePBX:
so that you don't rely on DNS. In older versions of Asterisk (we still have users who use 1.4!), DNS would cause Asterisk to crash.
This is specifically a PJSIP trunk. It cannot exist prior to Asterisk 12, and wasn't normal until Asterisk 13.
@Skyetel said in Setting up a Skyetel SIP trunk in FreePBX:
Additionally, some people use less-than-awesome DNS solutions that either take a long time to propagate or are just providing inaccurate results.
If they are that bad, they will have other support issues anyway. You cannot fix stupid.
@Skyetel said in Setting up a Skyetel SIP trunk in FreePBX:
We typically recommend creating multiple trunks with our IPs
That creates its own disaster of teaching people how to route outbound calls.
