What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Ok. N00b question, but since there's easy confusion with terms, a phone feature that says "12 VoIP accounts" should mean the phone can be configured to register 12 unique extensions, correct? In Yealink's product video the T42G "supports 3 SIP accounts." The video was made in 2013, so perhaps his information is out of date, or am I misunderstanding SIP account vs VoIP account?
Context: Datasheet for Yealink T42G.
It means that the PHONE can connect to three different PBXs or whatever has a SIP trunk.
Simplify the terms because @EddieJennings has no idea what he is saying.
It means the phone can hold 3 SIP accounts. Period. A SIP account is a SIP account, there is nothing else.
The difference between a SIP Trunk and a SIP Extension is all in the signaling capabilities of the devices. Both are still SIP accounts. SIP is SIP.
Hence the use of n00b. SIP is SIP makes sense. My little Yealink t21p phone with which I've registered two extensions means two SIP accounts are registered on it.
That's why it didn't make sense for the documentation on that phone to say it supported 12 accounts, but their product person in the video to say it supported three. It also seemed odd to see two different terms; thus, I ask some authoritative voices to make sure there wasn't something I had missed in my learning.
-
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Ok. N00b question, but since there's easy confusion with terms, a phone feature that says "12 VoIP accounts" should mean the phone can be configured to register 12 unique extensions, correct? In Yealink's product video the T42G "supports 3 SIP accounts." The video was made in 2013, so perhaps his information is out of date, or am I misunderstanding SIP account vs VoIP account?
Context: Datasheet for Yealink T42G.
It means that the PHONE can connect to three different PBXs or whatever has a SIP trunk.
Simplify the terms because @EddieJennings has no idea what he is saying.
It means the phone can hold 3 SIP accounts. Period. A SIP account is a SIP account, there is nothing else.
The difference between a SIP Trunk and a SIP Extension is all in the signaling capabilities of the devices. Both are still SIP accounts. SIP is SIP.
Hence the use of n00b. SIP is SIP makes sense. My little Yealink t21p phone with which I've registered two extensions means two SIP accounts are registered on it.
That's why it didn't make sense for the documentation on that phone to say it supported 12 accounts, but their product person in the video to say it supported three. It also seemed odd to see two different terms; thus, I ask some authoritative voices to make sure there wasn't something I had missed in my learning.
This is why you have to specify on VoIP.ms if you are connecting to an ATA/softphone or to a PBX. So their side knows how to handle the SIP connection. Either as a trunk or an extension.
-
Listening to my dad and his wife create an account on Aetna.com
I am not getting involved.... They have been told to use LastPass. I am done.
-
@JaredBusch Ha!
-
Just made the kids dinner.
-
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch Ha!
Vindicated!!
Once they, finally, had the account created, my dad logged them out, and then logged in again and i heard him tell his wife, now we click add site in lastpass.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch Ha!
Vindicated!!
Once they, finally, had the account created, my dad logged them out, and then logged in again and i heard him tell his wife, now we click add site in lastpass.
Sometimes they learn.
-
Calling @scottalanmiller out on SW for incorrectly claiming that FXO equates to a physical PBX.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Calling @scottalanmiller out on SW for incorrectly claiming that FXO equates to a physical PBX.
Only because someone used it in the context of not using his standalone FXO that he already had and needed to buy FXO hardware for his PBX. You'll notice that the person who responded had thought that that was what he had said, too, so while I worded it wrongly, I did get his intention correct. This is one of those "Scott actually read the implication correctly" that everyone else thought was ambiguous. And it was, but the guy recommending the FXO had corrected the use of the existing FXO device that the OP already had.
-
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
No one was pushing a physical card prior to you saying to never go physical.
-
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
No one was pushing a physical card prior to you saying to never go physical.
They didn't "say" it, but defended it pretty strongly once I pointed it out as if that was what they had said. So I took that as confirmation that that had been at least the one person's intention, right or wrong. He responded as if I had corrected what he was thinking, so I still am pretty sure that that was what he had meant to imply. Especially given that it was posted on a thread that was already answered for an OP who already had an FXO gatway device otherwise.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
No one was pushing a physical card prior to you saying to never go physical.
They didn't "say" it, but defended it pretty strongly once I pointed it out as if that was what they had said. So I took that as confirmation that that had been at least the one person's intention, right or wrong. He responded as if I had corrected what he was thinking, so I still am pretty sure that that was what he had meant to imply. Especially given that it was posted on a thread that was already answered for an OP who already had an FXO gatway device otherwise.
No. The only argument was from Mealy arguing your generic industry best practice to virtualize everything, granted he is wrong on that point. No one ever said anything else. Seriously, go back and read the posts slower.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
No one was pushing a physical card prior to you saying to never go physical.
They didn't "say" it, but defended it pretty strongly once I pointed it out as if that was what they had said. So I took that as confirmation that that had been at least the one person's intention, right or wrong. He responded as if I had corrected what he was thinking, so I still am pretty sure that that was what he had meant to imply. Especially given that it was posted on a thread that was already answered for an OP who already had an FXO gatway device otherwise.
No. The only argument was from Mealy arguing your generic industry best practice to virtualize everything, granted he is wrong on that point. No one ever said anything else. Seriously, go back and read the posts slower.
Well sorry if I misinterpreted that he meant to imply physical installs. I know that the OP had an FXO gateway already, so it came across as pushing for FXO cards in my mind because he already had an FXO otherwise. You are right, they never actually said it. But I think Mealy meant it, even if he didn't say it. The other guy did not, so I was just wrong there.
-
-
More Unifi stuff this morning. Then onto can I build a RAID for backup restore testing (i.e. I need a old PC that a: has PCI slot for my Raid controller and b: has enough bloody power connectors to connect 3 1TB drives)
-
Free vmug meeting today on automation and seeing new spiderman. Why not? With @NetworkNerd
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
YOu were right, I totally wrote it incorrectly because I was caught up in the guy trying to push a physical card that I forget to go into the fact that the ATA in use was an FXO already. It was so implied by Mealy that I didn't circle back to explain.
No one was pushing a physical card prior to you saying to never go physical.
They didn't "say" it, but defended it pretty strongly once I pointed it out as if that was what they had said. So I took that as confirmation that that had been at least the one person's intention, right or wrong. He responded as if I had corrected what he was thinking, so I still am pretty sure that that was what he had meant to imply. Especially given that it was posted on a thread that was already answered for an OP who already had an FXO gatway device otherwise.
No. The only argument was from Mealy arguing your generic industry best practice to virtualize everything, granted he is wrong on that point. No one ever said anything else. Seriously, go back and read the posts slower.
Well sorry if I misinterpreted that he meant to imply physical installs. I know that the OP had an FXO gateway already, so it came across as pushing for FXO cards in my mind because he already had an FXO otherwise. You are right, they never actually said it. But I think Mealy meant it, even if he didn't say it. The other guy did not, so I was just wrong there.
I find Scott admitting that he thought someone meant something fascinating. So many posts, at least to me, seem obvious what the poster is desiring, even though they don't say that specific thing. Example - the AD post 2 days ago on SW. They guy claimed he wanted "cloud based AD." I took this to mean any AD like solution that provided the MS AD suite of services like onsite AD suite does (group policies, centralized authentication, etc)
-
@Texkonc nice combination. sounds fun
