@PSX_Defector said:

You can also block it at the SIP level with your provider. Do that along with international dialing, save yourself some headache.

If the SIP provider offers this, definitely. Using a route to do it stops your extensions (if compromised) from using them. Blocking them at the SIP carrier stops your PBX if compromised from calling them.

Neither stops you if the SIP provider is the one making the calls (looking at you, Megapath.)

@JaredBusch said:

and while I sure some many people will have 25 year old systems.... they seriously should not.

FTFY

@JoeyJakubiak said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@JoeyJakubiak said:

@wirestyle22 said:

To be honest I wouldn't have known either who to call in this particular circumstance. I don't know if I would have called 911 but I probably would've settle on someone else's expertise similarly. Good information across the board here. Thanks.

Some very good information. Our Safety Director doesn't even know who to talk to. He has suggested I talk to our local fire marshall. @scottalanmiller do you think the fire marshall will have reliable info?

That's a much better resource. He at least should have the authority to tell you that he can't tell you.

We do have a attorney on retainer but Management would like me to call the Fire Marshall first and see what he recommends and then call the attorney. Ill post my findings.

That's reasonable, I think.

Thanks everyone!

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

Sounds like your Mitel just isn't up to snuff if it requires that and you are using a kludge to get around a hobbled system.

Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. I have no idea if the Mitel can have a one button transfer to a conference bridge (more likely two button, conference and the conference location).

As for the setup, I've never used a setup with a one button transfer to a conference bridge, so I couldn't reference it. I learned something 🙂

So if you haven't used the one button transfer, and you have a Mitel, is it because you've just not bothered to use it, even though it was the driver that brought you to the Mitel, or do you feel that the Mitel is not up to snuff? Or is there a third option I am missing?

The company was using Inter-Tel (bought my Mitel) when I joined the company. Conferencing at the phone level I'm sure was not why they went with Inter-Tel - it's just a feature they discovered and continued to use.

It is a sales tactic...

The one feature that I really loved with 3CX was the incredible ease of setting up soft phones over a VPN. They do that beautifully.

@JaredBusch said:

@Dashrender said:

awww Inbound doesn't have this limit. even better!

Huh? The trunk being used for inbound calls on my system is VoicePulse and it has an 8 concurrent call limit. The outbound trunk is VoIP.ms which is soft capped at 25, and there are also 2 IAX2 trunks connecting to other PBX systems. Those systems have no caps

Clearly I'm just off today, ignore me.

@JaredBusch said:

@scottalanmiller said:

That makes sense. This is a FreePBX install from FreePBX ISO as far as I can tell from looking at it and all files come from the Schmooze repos and it is causing it to be very out of date compared to standard CentOS 6.

Wait, what? Does the FreePBX distro change what repos yum uses for base CentOS updates?

Yeah, it uses Schmooze repos instead of CentOS ones. I can change that, of course, but by default...

Wow, on a high end Juniper switch? That's more bad ports on a single Juniper than I've seen first hand on decades of use of Netgear!

@hubtechagain said:

Cause it's what they've got scott

@scottalanmiller said:

That's an odd answer - especially given they are apparently introducing a new system with Hylafax.

That is not an odd answer. They have an existing VM infrastructure. Normal business do not look to change core infrastructure every time they look at adding a new VM for some task or another.

Asking if there is any compatibility issues is a very normal thing that has to be done with ANY system.

Answer the question that was asked without tossing in craptastical bias.

Want to toss in the rest of your opinion? Great! Don't lead with it.

Back to the OP's question. I have never ran any type of 2008R2 Hyper-V servers. I know that Hyper-V prior to 2012 had many issues compared to ESXi. Which is why all of my clients started out on the virtualization path using VMWare.

@scottalanmiller Can I borrow your password for a few weeks? I need to watch Game of Thrones after I finish the books, lol.

@scottalanmiller said:

OH okay. I think maybe someone responded to you about your setup or something and then it looked like there had been a question that there wasn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

you are welcome

I also noticed if I used the *78 to activate DND/*79 to deactivate DND, I can't reverse DND from the soft button because the phone assumes it's already in the desired state. I can activate (on) DND, then turn around and deactivate it.

Just something to keep in mind, in case anyone was wondering.

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

Thanks - I only used it because I've seen it used other places.

Might be used some places I haven't seen. But in case someone is searching, they would search on FreePBX, not FPBX, I assume. Just in case others are looking for information later.

I can just picture someone saying "I can't get FPBX to work with my OBFN using a VM on ESXi running on OBR10 local disk." And it makes me chuckle a little.

Definitely impressive.

@thecreativeone91 said:

@Dashrender said:

I'm confused... So what you're telling me is, in a digital system (and possibly in my Mitel VOIP/SIP system too) that the call control isn't handed off to the phone, but is asterisk it is?

We used Mitel PBX and IP Phones at the town. Yes they call it a hold but it was basically a parking lot. Are there was a Individual Hold which placed it at the phone (could not remote pick up) or a System Hold which placed it on the PBX's parking lot hold. We just programed the buttons to do the system hold. It's different vendor terminology but it's the same thing.

So the parking lot # it put it at was always it's own extension? OK that would make total sense... the guys who set it up must have done that then...

@JaredBusch said:

I have never heard of a provider that required a separate trunk for inbound and outbound. that is just crazy.

So, is this just a Vitelity issue? I know many SIP providers have their subtle differences, and you always seem to find them at the most inopportune moments.

@thecreativeone91 said:

What the Adavantage with Pbx in a flash? That's the only one I haven't used. I've mostly used FreePBX (and some straight up asterisk)

The PBX in a Flash team also has a lot of nice extra features baked in and some that you can add (Traveling Man is a good example).

PBX in a Flash existed long before FreePBX had a distribution of its own. Obviously, PIAF uses the FreePBX GUI just like Elastix.unli,e Elastix, they do not wrap everything around in their own GUI. All that PIAF does is add a quick and dirty landing page to let you access the various tools directly from one place.

You basically need to know more to truly admin a PIAF system well.

It is also heavily focused on security.

Congrats