Posts made by whoolly

thats a good thought gjacobse, I will get to the users machine later and give that a go.

All, we are using Cylance as our AV product. On a handful of computers, they receive the pop up from Windows defender. "This app has been turned off and isn't monitoring your computer"
In the security and maintenance control panel, it says that Cylance is turned on and is everything is ok, but yet still this pop up happens.
The app should be disabled since there is another AV product.
I have been in contact with Dell support (we bought through Dell and I have to get support through them, Cylance will not talk to me directly) and have not gotten anywhere with them on this.
Their only suggestion was to do a gpedit and remove notifications from the action center.
I tried that and still you get the popup.

Anyone have an ideas?
Much appreciated.

I belong to a group of podcasters called the SoonToBeNamedNetwork, you can check us out at soontobenamednetwork.com

I host a show called Puzzlewarrrios3 for anyone who plays marvel puzzle quest mobile game.
We have podcasts about comic books, atheism, voltron, wrestling, general pop culture, ST:TNG.

For off the network, I like Jay and Miles explain the X-men, if you have any interest in x-men comics.

we ended up going the route of the L2L VPN to get the phones to work. Vendor insisted he has never had any VOIP issues with Sonicwall and didn't want to budge on that. After a day of them figuring out how to put the phones on a separate Vlan and then getting that traffic to the firewall, we finally got the vpn up and working and the phones registered again. All in all a very frustrating experience, thanks to everyone here for the help.
If only we could charge by the hour, but we don't as we are one gov agency helping another.
If anyone else here besides SAM will be in Austin later this year, see you at Touche's.

I don't have any access to the Sonicwall, and am not familiar with their setup.
I can ask the vendor, what specifically should they be looking at?

Client will not replace the Sonicwall and insists that they do this all the time and never have any voip issues with Sonicwall. They now want to do a L2L VPN tunnel for the voice network back to the internal IP of our PBX. I would rather not do this, but the boss wants the issue resolved.
As I said before, they are trying to do a NAT of my public IP of my PBX to the internal IP of one of their layer 2 switches .. why ... I dunno.
I am no network guru in any stretch, but this doesn't seem right at all.
see below quote from client and sonic wall

"Spoke with another Sonicwall support engineer regarding Sonicwall ticket #42488945, the VoIP phone system issue. The Sonicwall engineer noted that when traffic is initiated by the external PBX (SwitchVOX at SC Boro) the destination port is a random port number anywhere in the 10,000’s range. The Sonicwall, as it is currently configured, properly allows and forwards this traffic to the Internal SCboro Gateway which is one of the Cisco SF300 switches at 10.1.8.6. This switch does not know where to forward the traffic for this destination port. The Sonicwall engineer stated that there would have to be an internal voice server that could interpret the destination ports and forward the voice traffic to the appropriate VoIP phone, or the external SwitchVOX would have to bind the destination ports with the VoIP phone extensions."

Do you have any suggestions on where to go next?

They told me that they changed it to 3600 instead of 30s.
They also said that Sonicwall told them that they had to have a NAT statement to translate my phone servers public IP into something on their network, so they are translating it to the IP of on of their switches.
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
I have a little meraki firewall that we use for a spare cable modem connection, i put 2 phones onto that and registered the phones and have not had any issues.

Apparently spoke too soon.
The vendor providing the Sonicwall and the client are now saying same issues again.
You will call from one extension to another and it will ring twice and go to VM.
Sometimes this happens a couple of times before the call will go through.
firewall provider says that they have made all of the switchvox recommended settings.
So any other ideas?
I will try to coordinate a call between Switchvox support and the Sonicwall provider.

Thanks everyone, after getting the vendor all of Digium's sonic wall reference, they made all the changes and things so far appear to be back to normal.

@scottalanmiller

Hey SAM, I sent the vendor a link to the Digium SonicWall reference, http://support.digium.com/articles/FAQ/What-Are-Relevant-Sonicwall-Settings-for-Switchvox?popup=false
I will ask about the SIP-ALG.
thanks as always.

Hello all, maybe someone here can help us out.
We have a client who connects to our Switchvox system by registering their phones over the internet to our phone server.
Sometimes, it seems kinda random, you can't make calls from one desk to another, the call will ring twice and then go to voicemail, other times it works fine.
Sometimes the same thing happens when you transfer a call. The person you are transferring to never has their phone ring, and the call goes to VM.
Sometimes when leaving a voicemail, it never actually records the message.
Again, all of this is sometimes ...
It does seem however, that when you call someone and it fails, if you immediately call them again, it works several times in a row.
This client used to be our WAN and the phones registered that way, and never had an issue.
Now, they outsourced their IT, and got another internet connection that they are using through a SonicWall appliance, so all the phones were switched to register to the public IP of our phone server over their new internet connection.
Outgoing calls from the system always seems to work fine.
The issue seemed to be that the packets being sent to the phones just again sometimes don't get there. The vendor's IT worked with Sonicwall and changed some NAT rules and some UDP settings, and that seemed to alleviate for a day, but now the issue is back.
Our phone server sits behind a Cisco ASA with a public IP NAT.
Anyone have any ideas?