Hi All, I have had a moment of clarity and I think I need to rethink my business strategy with regard to FS for SMALL Businesses (less than 5 DIDs and 5 phones/extensions). To date I have attempted to HOST the customers phone services on a multitenant FS box "in a bunker". This has led to many setbacks due to NAT issues on the CLIENT end with different router and phone hardware. Perhaps I have a self-imposed problem that could be easily rectified. My strategy has been to be sure the switch is always reachable and route to alternate phones or voicemail if the client site is unreachable. I had thought this would provide for the highest availability of inbound call handling. I now think installing a FS PC onsite maybe be far simpler provided that the VOIP provider can handle routing to a failover switch. So I am considering changing from: <FS> -- public IP -- <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat'ed client phones to: <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat'ed FS -- local lan - non-nat phones I am looking for folks to talk about this configuration with FS NATed/Port Forwarded or FS dual home IP with a public IP and a nat ip. Many small businesses can't provide a public IP. In fact most will occasionally have their public IP change without notice. Clearly the VOIP provider will have to be updated with the new address. Is there a slick way to handle that problem? How well has this configuration worked for other people? Thanks, Sean --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
We do both of which you are questioning. To handle the Nat'ed FS pbx clients, we installed a freeswitch which acts as a tandem between voip suppliers and the nat'ed pbx's, be sure in this mode you use NDLB in your profile for the tandem FS. The Freeswitch using NDLB and registrations, easily handles the changing IPs. We exclusively use free switch for all products. We run a hosted multi tennant freeswitch for the small clients, 2 to 10 phones and use cloud servers independently for larger customers, 20 to 50 phones. We have a nice web based graphical interface for the free switch that supports the multi-domain hosted servers. We were previously using snomONE/pbxnsip, moved everything to Freeswitch and removed our most of our problems. Love to spend time discussing the platform you are moving to and share our experiences. Darcy ----- Original Message ----- From: Sean P Devoy To: FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:25 PM Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Equipment Location Survey Hi All, I have had a moment of clarity and I think I need to rethink my business strategy with regard to FS for SMALL Businesses (less than 5 DIDs and 5 phones/extensions). To date I have attempted to HOST the customers phone services on a multitenant FS box "in a bunker". This has led to many setbacks due to NAT issues on the CLIENT end with different router and phone hardware. Perhaps I have a self-imposed problem that could be easily rectified. My strategy has been to be sure the switch is always reachable and route to alternate phones or voicemail if the client site is unreachable. I had thought this would provide for the highest availability of inbound call handling. I now think installing a FS PC onsite maybe be far simpler provided that the VOIP provider can handle routing to a failover switch. So I am considering changing from: <FS> -- public IP -- <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat'ed client phones to: <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat'ed FS -- local lan - non-nat phones I am looking for folks to talk about this configuration with FS NATed/Port Forwarded or FS dual home IP with a public IP and a nat ip. Many small businesses can't provide a public IP. In fact most will occasionally have their public IP change without notice. Clearly the VOIP provider will have to be updated with the new address. Is there a slick way to handle that problem? How well has this configuration worked for other people? Thanks, Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6910 - Release Date: 12/11/13
Few notes: Some companies that provide VoIP solutions require that the box uses their router, so that you are in control of firewall. To get the IP updated, the client should register. Perhaps you still want to have your bunker box, they register to you every 5 minutes or the like, and if they aren't available, you forward to mobiles. And have that machine do the internal routing, behind their nat. -Avi On Dec 11, 2013 10:25 PM, "Sean P Devoy" <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I have had a moment of clarity and I think I need to rethink my business strategy with regard to FS for SMALL Businesses (less than 5 DIDs and 5 phones/extensions). To date I have attempted to HOST the customers phone services on a multitenant FS box “in a bunker”. This has led to *many *setbacks due to NAT issues on the CLIENT end with different router and phone hardware. Perhaps I have a self-imposed problem that could be easily rectified.
My strategy has been to be sure the switch is always reachable and route to alternate phones or voicemail if the client site is unreachable. I had thought this would provide for the highest availability of inbound call handling. I now think installing a FS PC onsite maybe be far simpler provided that the VOIP provider can handle routing to a failover switch.
So I am considering changing from: <FS> -- public IP -- <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat’ed client phones
to: <internet> -- <NAT Router> -- Nat’ed FS -- local lan – non-nat phones
I am looking for folks to talk about this configuration with FS NATed/Port Forwarded or FS dual home IP with a public IP and a nat ip. Many small businesses can’t provide a public IP. In fact most will occasionally have their public IP change without notice. Clearly the VOIP provider will have to be updated with the new address. Is there a slick way to handle that problem?
How well has this configuration worked for other people?
Thanks,
Sean
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/>protection is active.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
participants (3)
-
Avi Marcus
-
fs
-
Sean P Devoy