Re: [opensuse] VoIP ATA does NOT need to have a foxed address, only the ISP does
On 05/26/2016 04:50 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
Actually, with NAT, you have to use an STUN server to communicate the
real address to the other end. Otherwise, it would try to use the NAT address, which wouldn't be reachable. This is just one example of a hack made necessary by NAT. I'm sorry, no you don't need a STUN server.
Perhaps some servile providers configure their systems so to make it necessary, but mine certainly doesn't!
In fact they insist that a STUN is NOT to be configured.
OK, your VoIP phone is behind NAT, with an RFC 1918 address. The other end has to be able to reach your phone. What address does it use? And how does it get it? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
27.05.2016 04:46, James Knott пишет:
On 05/26/2016 04:50 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
Actually, with NAT, you have to use an STUN server to communicate the
real address to the other end. Otherwise, it would try to use the NAT address, which wouldn't be reachable. This is just one example of a hack made necessary by NAT. I'm sorry, no you don't need a STUN server.
Perhaps some servile providers configure their systems so to make it necessary, but mine certainly doesn't!
In fact they insist that a STUN is NOT to be configured.
OK, your VoIP phone is behind NAT, with an RFC 1918 address. The other end has to be able to reach your phone. What address does it use? And how does it get it?
Linksys ATA is using SIP NAT traversal. So yes, in this case separate STUN server is not needed. Which does not mean of course that two VoIP communicate directly without any help. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
Linksys ATA is using SIP NAT traversal. So yes, in this case separate STUN server is not needed. Which does not mean of course that two VoIP communicate directly without any help.
And that has always been my point. If it weren't for NAT, the 2 devices could work without such "help". -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/27/2016 06:51 AM, James Knott wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
Linksys ATA is using SIP NAT traversal. So yes, in this case separate STUN server is not needed. Which does not mean of course that two VoIP communicate directly without any help.
And that has always been my point. If it weren't for NAT, the 2 devices could work without such "help".
If all you are using VoIP for as a POTS replacement, which is the way its being sold to most consumers, especially home consumers, then that's irrelevant; they are both concerned with the old fashioned POTS numbers, 10 or 7 digit here in North America, other patterns in the rest of the world. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
27.05.2016 04:46, James Knott пишет:
On 05/26/2016 04:50 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
Actually, with NAT, you have to use an STUN server to communicate the
real address to the other end. Otherwise, it would try to use the NAT address, which wouldn't be reachable. This is just one example of a hack made necessary by NAT. I'm sorry, no you don't need a STUN server.
Perhaps some servile providers configure their systems so to make it necessary, but mine certainly doesn't!
In fact they insist that a STUN is NOT to be configured.
OK, your VoIP phone is behind NAT, with an RFC 1918 address. The other end has to be able to reach your phone. What address does it use? And how does it get it?
Linksys ATA is using SIP NAT traversal. So yes, in this case separate STUN server is not needed. Which does not mean of course that two VoIP communicate directly without any help.
Thank you Andrei. I've tried persuading many of my friends&relations to use VoIP but to be honest, the only people who seem the least bit interested in talking to me on the phone are my doctor/dentist calling to confirm/remind appointments and headhunters who insist on phone interviews, which I consider as lame and useless as email interviews, after all so much of meaningful communication is face to face, non-verbal.. That constraint means they dial me using the pre-WW2 style UI that they are familiar with. In "Dead men don't wear plaid" Rachel Ward adapted Lauren Bacall's great line from "To have and have not":
Juliet Forrest: If you need me, just call. You know how to dial, don't you? You just put your finger in the hole and make tiny little circles.
It was all in the way she said it .... Direct communication ... well teh bg problem with telephone is that it demands the presence of both parties, its 'synchronous' whereas email and texting is asynchronous. Which is even more wonderful, as this list demonstrates, when you are in different time zones. One of the of-quoted put-down of the phone:
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." Western Union internal memo, 1876
came about because of just that; telegrams were delivered, you had hard copy; you didn't have to respond in real time .... Right now it turns out I don't use the phone much, just a few people who haven't caught up on late 20th century technology, haven't got a computer like my aged stepmother. She'll never get IPv6; she hasn't even got IPv4. To be absolutely honest, I have misgivings about VoIP. Some of teh head-hunters who call are almost unintelligible. I suspect that the 'open standard' of VoIP is a bit like some of the IPv4 was back in the 1980s. I recall going to InterOp in SF a few times and being at "interoperability bake-off" there where the various vendors tried verifying they could all communicate with one another. Quite a few fails. And Cisco refused point blank to participate. A company I worked for didn't have Cisco equipment and one of its peers did and when the leased line went down they couldn't bring it back up; Cisco's PTP/PAP was not conformant/interoperable (at that time) and the netadmins had to phone each other up (long distance) and do various negations and stuff to make it work. I was later told that Cisco bout out NetBalazer and ended up using their technology. I suspect that we're going through a similar cycle with VoIP; various implementations are conforming to the standard as written, but that doesn't mean that they interoperate smoothly. Heck, just about everyone here has enough experience in 'software doesn't always work the way it say its supposed to, every time, even after patching...' to accept that even corporate & governmental stuff can't be relied on. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-05-27 13:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
I've tried persuading many of my friends&relations to use VoIP but to be honest, the only people who seem the least bit interested in talking to me on the phone are my doctor/dentist calling to confirm/remind appointments and headhunters who insist on phone interviews, which I consider as lame and useless as email interviews, after all so much of meaningful communication is face to face, non-verbal..
If you (and I) had a real VoIP phone replacing the old POTS in your home, you could do call screening. You could route those calls to a machine asking questions before it decides to bother you with a ring - or refusing. Just what they do to you when you call them. Must real people phone my mobile (cellular). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
On 05/27/2016 08:21 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-05-27 13:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
I've tried persuading many of my friends&relations to use VoIP but to be honest, the only people who seem the least bit interested in talking to me on the phone are my doctor/dentist calling to confirm/remind appointments and headhunters who insist on phone interviews, which I consider as lame and useless as email interviews, after all so much of meaningful communication is face to face, non-verbal..
If you (and I) had a real VoIP phone replacing the old POTS in your home, you could do call screening. You could route those calls to a machine asking questions before it decides to bother you with a ring - or refusing. Just what they do to you when you call them.
I don't know what you problem is. I can do all that. And more. Like re-routing by time of day, different ring tones (particularly for people I know), "follow me", different voice messages for callers I know (e.g telling family, g/f when I'll be home), telling marketeer that this number has been disconnected so they will (hopefully) remove it from their phone books), simultaneous ringing of the various rooms I might be in, ... And a lot more. To be honest, I'm getting fed up with you gays telling me that I can't possibly do things that I am am doing.
Must real people phone my mobile (cellular).
All my numbers are "ex-directory" so its more about who has forwarded them for some reason. There's still a lot of people around who are careless about PII. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-05-27 17:58, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 08:21 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-05-27 13:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
I've tried persuading many of my friends&relations to use VoIP but to be honest, the only people who seem the least bit interested in talking to me on the phone are my doctor/dentist calling to confirm/remind appointments and headhunters who insist on phone interviews, which I consider as lame and useless as email interviews, after all so much of meaningful communication is face to face, non-verbal..
If you (and I) had a real VoIP phone replacing the old POTS in your home, you could do call screening. You could route those calls to a machine asking questions before it decides to bother you with a ring - or refusing. Just what they do to you when you call them.
I don't know what you problem is. I can do all that. And more. Like re-routing by time of day, different ring tones (particularly for people I know), "follow me", different voice messages for callers I know (e.g telling family, g/f when I'll be home), telling marketeer that this number has been disconnected so they will (hopefully) remove it from their phone books), simultaneous ringing of the various rooms I might be in, ...
And a lot more.
On POTS? I can't, without purchasing expensive equipment. And I don't even know what equipment. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-05-27 17:58, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 08:21 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-05-27 13:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 12:07 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
I've tried persuading many of my friends&relations to use VoIP but to be honest, the only people who seem the least bit interested in talking to me on the phone are my doctor/dentist calling to confirm/remind appointments and headhunters who insist on phone interviews, which I consider as lame and useless as email interviews, after all so much of meaningful communication is face to face, non-verbal..
If you (and I) had a real VoIP phone replacing the old POTS in your home, you could do call screening. You could route those calls to a machine asking questions before it decides to bother you with a ring - or refusing. Just what they do to you when you call them.
I don't know what you problem is. I can do all that. And more. Like re-routing by time of day, different ring tones (particularly for people I know), "follow me", different voice messages for callers I know (e.g telling family, g/f when I'll be home), telling marketeer that this number has been disconnected so they will (hopefully) remove it from their phone books), simultaneous ringing of the various rooms I might be in, ...
And a lot more.
On POTS? I can't, without purchasing expensive equipment. And I don't even know what equipment.
Anton probably has POTS phones connected, but it is his VoIP box that does all that fancy stuff. My old mum has also gone VoIP, but she is having trouble getting the provider to fix the caller-id function. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it kinda works. They're starting a petition know. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (18.4°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/27/2016 02:47 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-05-27 17:58, Anton Aylward wrote:
I don't know what you problem is. I can do all that. And more. Like re-routing by time of day, different ring tones (particularly for people I know), "follow me", different voice messages for callers I know (e.g telling family, g/f when I'll be home), telling marketeer that this number has been disconnected so they will (hopefully) remove it from their phone books), simultaneous ringing of the various rooms I might be in, ...
And a lot more.
On POTS? I can't, without purchasing expensive equipment. And I don't even know what equipment.
Anton probably has POTS phones connected, but it is his VoIP box that does all that fancy stuff. My old mum has also gone VoIP, but she is having trouble getting the provider to fix the caller-id function. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it kinda works. They're starting a petition know.
I thought I made it clear. I have a VoIP service. I have an ATA box that lets POTS handsets and stuff plug in to it so I can use the conventional house wiring. I had a DID service that is the same number as back in the analogue POTs days so people can call me. To them it looks like the POTS. I have not needed to buy net VoIP-aware handsets. Between the UI on the ATA and the UI at the web site of my VoIP provider I can set up all those things. If you want to call that combined UI "a VoIP box" then I'm not going to argue too hard. I'm aware that some ATA units do implement some of the things I do with the provider's UI. I've got fine and easy control over the caller ID I send out and sometimes make a joke of it. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward wrote:
I thought I made it clear.
Clearly not :-)
I have a VoIP service. I have an ATA box that lets POTS handsets and stuff plug in to it so I can use the conventional house wiring.
Right.
I had a DID service that is the same number as back in the analogue POTs days so people can call me. To them it looks like the POTS. I have not needed to buy net VoIP-aware handsets.
Right. Your ATA box enables that.
Between the UI on the ATA and the UI at the web site of my VoIP provider I can set up all those things. If you want to call that combined UI "a VoIP box" then I'm not going to argue too hard.
Yes. For instance, your ATA box doesn't do Voicemail and call rejects/diverts, your provider does that. Typical Asterisk setup. With a proper VoIP telephone (we use Linksys SPA041), you have full control of all from the keypad. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.1°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
Yes. For instance, your ATA box doesn't do Voicemail and call rejects/diverts, your provider does that. Typical Asterisk setup. With a proper VoIP telephone (we use Linksys SPA041), you have full control of all from the keypad.
Correction - can't blacklist callers from the keypad, that goes into Asterisk. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.1°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2016-05-27 21:33, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/27/2016 02:47 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
And a lot more.
On POTS? I can't, without purchasing expensive equipment. And I don't even know what equipment.
Anton probably has POTS phones connected, but it is his VoIP box that does all that fancy stuff. My old mum has also gone VoIP, but she is having trouble getting the provider to fix the caller-id function. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it kinda works. They're starting a petition know.
I thought I made it clear. I have a VoIP service. I have an ATA box that lets POTS handsets and stuff plug in to it so I can use the conventional house wiring.
The thing is, my provider uses SIP on fibre to my house, where a black box (ONT) converts it to POTS (and ethernet). They do not give me access to SIP. I do not get any SIP features from them. Some people reverse engineered the connection data and got SIP service. I tried this afternoon and failed. So what I said was simply that the people that do get SIP from their phone providers can do a lot of things that people on POTS can't. Not related to having IPv4 or IPv6, I didn't claim that. (But if I had IPv6 I would have it easier to roll my own VoIP) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)
participants (5)
-
Andrei Borzenkov -
Anton Aylward -
Carlos E. R. -
James Knott -
Per Jessen