Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Not really. I see it consistently. Surprising to me, but I see it consistently.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
Sunk cost. We've been down this road about his boss before.
Also he keeps sinking time into Mitel settings and enabling it to hobble along more. See his recent thread on Mitel and VoIP.ms.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
Mitel wants a million dollars to do anything.
Not really - but you get my point.
To get them remote access - I'd have to purchase another phone license $250, purchase a phone $250 or the phone client (no clue on price).
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
it's worse - not only each extension - each connection. For example, As JB just mentioned, I recently got VOIP.ms to work with my PBX. This requires SIP licenses for each simultaneous call. Another $250+ per license.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
Sunk cost. We've been down this road about his boss before.
I know. But it means that spending money unnecessarily was something that they wanted to do to get into the sunk cost scenario to begin with. In fact, sunk cost itself is effectively defined as as desire to spend money unnecessarily.
Sunk cost = wants to spend money.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
I wouldn't go that far.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
I wouldn't go that far.
I don't know much consumer gear that doesn't make that easy.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
-
@coliver said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
He needs handsets, though. That's his financial hump to overcome.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@coliver said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
He needs handsets, though. That's his financial hump to overcome.
Yeah I think I remember this from another conversation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
Sunk cost. We've been down this road about his boss before.
I know. But it means that spending money unnecessarily was something that they wanted to do to get into the sunk cost scenario to begin with. In fact, sunk cost itself is effectively defined as as desire to spend money unnecessarily.
Sunk cost = wants to spend money.
I love when you say these things. No one in the history of the planet has ever thought to themselves: Hmmm... I want to waste money on a phone system, so I'm going to buy this Mitel thing over here and blow a ton of money on it. And any little scratch I get, since I already blew that money on this thing, I'm going to forever more continue to just scratch those itches and spend whatever I need to to get my fix.
Did they fail in the first place by not hiring a buyer's consultant to find possible solutions? Likely.
How did they find themselves in the current situation? either a: called buddy - hey what/how are you using? do you like it? ok I'll get that too OR b: opened yellow pages to phone vendors and called an ad that looked good.
In both cases, at the time, they were given a price they could live with - having no clue what other options were available and at what costs... but again, they never had that first conversation with themselves that I posted at the top of this reply.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
I think both is best, most secure. I prefer password for ease of movement and failover, I prefer IP for security, it's far harder to hack an IP than to get a username/password.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
I think both is best, most secure. I prefer password for ease of movement and failover, I prefer IP for security, it's far harder to hack an IP than to get a username/password.
I was thinking the same thing. IP seems more secure.
