New PBX - on prem or off?
-
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
All voice traffic goes between end-points directly and PBX is just involved in setting up the call.
This is false. It can be set up that way. but it is not that way by default.
Are you sure Jared? I thought SIP is just the signaling protocol and RTP the audio. Only when you need to record calls through the PBX, RTP has to go through the PBX.
SIP hands off, yes. PBX hands off, no.
-
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
All voice traffic goes between end-points directly and PBX is just involved in setting up the call.
This is false. It can be set up that way. but it is not that way by default.
Are you sure Jared? I thought SIP is just the signaling protocol and RTP the audio. Only when you need to record calls through the PBX, RTP has to go through the PBX.
I could see Matt problems here if the default was to try to go direct. In the past many firewalls did not support U-turn traffic
This would not be a u-turn. The PBX woudl inform the phone of each other's IP and port and the phones would simply establish a direct path for the RTP.
Same thing that MeshCentral does, or ZeroTier.
-
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
All voice traffic goes between end-points directly and PBX is just involved in setting up the call.
This is false. It can be set up that way. but it is not that way by default.
Are you sure Jared? I thought SIP is just the signaling protocol and RTP the audio. Only when you need to record calls through the PBX, RTP has to go through the PBX.
I could see Matt problems here if the default was to try to go direct. In the past many firewalls did not support U-turn traffic
This would not be a u-turn. The PBX woudl inform the phone of each other's IP and port and the phones would simply establish a direct path for the RTP.
What happens when both phones are behind the same firewall. Doesn’t the PBX from outside of the firewall only see the outside single IP of that firewall.
No, that's not how services work. If it was, things like email, web browsing and so forth would not work.
-
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
All voice traffic goes between end-points directly and PBX is just involved in setting up the call.
This is false. It can be set up that way. but it is not that way by default.
Are you sure Jared? I thought SIP is just the signaling protocol and RTP the audio. Only when you need to record calls through the PBX, RTP has to go through the PBX.
Very sure. It is a simple setting to flip, but the default is for the PBX to stay in the path.
SIP is only the signaling, that is correct. But SIP goes from point to point only.
Phone to PBX, done.
Then PBX to Phone2, done.
The PBX can then allow the phones to reinvite themselves to a direct call.
But it is something that it has to allow.I never recommend this for day to day use as you lose all ability to track your call flow and troubleshoot.
Special circumstance for a certain business need, can certainly mean turning this setting on.
Makes sense. I'm mostly familiar with 3CX and it actually seems to be the opposite there.
The options for each extension are:- PBX Delivers Audio (default off)
- Support Re-Invites (default on)
- Support 'Replaces' header (default on)
I don't know how much difference this makes on the PBX server load though. If you had 20 calls going on how many megabits per second would that be?
-
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
I don't know how much difference this makes on the PBX server load though. If you had 20 calls going on how many megabits per second would that be?
Assuming ULAW? 2mbps
-
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
Makes sense. I'm mostly familiar with 3CX and it actually seems to be the opposite there.
The options for each extension are:- PBX Delivers Audio (default off)
- Support Re-Invites (default on)
- Support 'Replaces' header (default on)
Support reinvite on the endpoint does not mean the PBX has it enabled. But I do not know enough about 3CX to tell you without being in a system.
-
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
Makes sense. I'm mostly familiar with 3CX and it actually seems to be the opposite there.
The options for each extension are:- PBX Delivers Audio (default off)
- Support Re-Invites (default on)
- Support 'Replaces' header (default on)
Support reinvite on the endpoint does not mean the PBX has it enabled. But I do not know enough about 3CX to tell you without being in a system.
I'm no expert so I don't know. The point of my original post was that the PBX requires very little resources but perhaps that is true only in the few cases where the audio doesn't flow through the PBX.
-
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
Makes sense. I'm mostly familiar with 3CX and it actually seems to be the opposite there.
The options for each extension are:- PBX Delivers Audio (default off)
- Support Re-Invites (default on)
- Support 'Replaces' header (default on)
Support reinvite on the endpoint does not mean the PBX has it enabled. But I do not know enough about 3CX to tell you without being in a system.
I'm no expert so I don't know. The point of my original post was that the PBX requires very little resources but perhaps that is true only if the audio doesn't flow through the PBX.
It is still true if the PBX has the audio. The only thing that makes a PBX work hard is transcoding audio from one format to another.
-
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Pete-S said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
Makes sense. I'm mostly familiar with 3CX and it actually seems to be the opposite there.
The options for each extension are:- PBX Delivers Audio (default off)
- Support Re-Invites (default on)
- Support 'Replaces' header (default on)
Support reinvite on the endpoint does not mean the PBX has it enabled. But I do not know enough about 3CX to tell you without being in a system.
I'm no expert so I don't know. The point of my original post was that the PBX requires very little resources but perhaps that is true only in the few cases where the audio doesn't flow through the PBX.
It's like a soft switch (actually, it IS a soft switch) and it takes almost zero effort to pass the RTP packets around.
-
So what did you decide?
-
The last conversation I had with him regarding this was that it would go off prem. But there still deciding if they’re even going to do anything.
-
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The last conversation I had with him regarding this was that it would go off prem. But there still deciding if they’re even going to do anything.
huh - I don't recall that. you do have a better memory than me though.
we've had zero movement in my company on this - though, we finally have a meeting to start it next week.
-
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The last conversation I had with him regarding this was that it would go off prem. But there still deciding if they’re even going to do anything.
huh - I don't recall that. you do have a better memory than me though.
we've had zero movement in my company on this - though, we finally have a meeting to start it next week.
To start the deployment of a PBX that has yet to be settled on a solution, where it will reside and how it will be configured.
Are you sure you don't work with me? Sounds like my place of business from time to time.
WAIT WAIT WAIT GO (can it be complete in 5 minutes)
-
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The POTS line currently act as fax lines and 911.
There is no need to keep this for 911. You can, but there is no requirement to do so.
As for faxing...... Well you are medical and have abnormal faxing needs.
Assuming that you keep this for faxing and don't mix it with the PBX, there is nothing else to do. The line will go straight from the demarc to the fax machines.
If you want to add it in for 911, then you are adding complexity. You will now need an FXO device to convert it to SIP to connect to the PBX. Obviously if this is a hosted service, you are looping back and forth and it will still fail if the internet is down, PBX is down, etc.
My plan/desire (but can't have emotions here - right?) is to have everything on SIP. I'll need FXO? to convert the SIP lines to analog for the fax machines.
I would like to kill all POTS.Update on this - using SIP for fax will be completely dependent upon the amount of faxes. In the case of our main facility, it makes financial sense to keep the flat fee POTS line, the per min fee would be much higher for us. For our remote locations, moving to FXO and SIP would likely save us a few bucks, after the FXO box is paid for.
-
@DustinB3403 said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The last conversation I had with him regarding this was that it would go off prem. But there still deciding if they’re even going to do anything.
huh - I don't recall that. you do have a better memory than me though.
we've had zero movement in my company on this - though, we finally have a meeting to start it next week.
To start the deployment of a PBX that has yet to be settled on a solution, where it will reside and how it will be configured.
Are you sure you don't work with me? Sounds like my place of business from time to time.
WAIT WAIT WAIT GO (can it be complete in 5 minutes)
huh? are you reading something I didn't write? We're not starting a deployment next week - we're starting meeting to discuss options next week.
-
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@DustinB3403 said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The last conversation I had with him regarding this was that it would go off prem. But there still deciding if they’re even going to do anything.
huh - I don't recall that. you do have a better memory than me though.
we've had zero movement in my company on this - though, we finally have a meeting to start it next week.
To start the deployment of a PBX that has yet to be settled on a solution, where it will reside and how it will be configured.
Are you sure you don't work with me? Sounds like my place of business from time to time.
WAIT WAIT WAIT GO (can it be complete in 5 minutes)
huh? are you reading something I didn't write? We're not starting a deployment next week - we're starting meeting to discuss options next week.
I was reading into what you were saying, on purpose. Yes.
-
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The POTS line currently act as fax lines and 911.
There is no need to keep this for 911. You can, but there is no requirement to do so.
As for faxing...... Well you are medical and have abnormal faxing needs.
Assuming that you keep this for faxing and don't mix it with the PBX, there is nothing else to do. The line will go straight from the demarc to the fax machines.
If you want to add it in for 911, then you are adding complexity. You will now need an FXO device to convert it to SIP to connect to the PBX. Obviously if this is a hosted service, you are looping back and forth and it will still fail if the internet is down, PBX is down, etc.
My plan/desire (but can't have emotions here - right?) is to have everything on SIP. I'll need FXO? to convert the SIP lines to analog for the fax machines.
I would like to kill all POTS.Update on this - using SIP for fax will be completely dependent upon the amount of faxes. In the case of our main facility, it makes financial sense to keep the flat fee POTS line, the per min fee would be much higher for us. For our remote locations, moving to FXO and SIP would likely save us a few bucks, after the FXO box is paid for.
Would using a service like hellofax work out any better? https://app.hellofax.com/info/pricing
-
@DustinB3403 said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The POTS line currently act as fax lines and 911.
There is no need to keep this for 911. You can, but there is no requirement to do so.
As for faxing...... Well you are medical and have abnormal faxing needs.
Assuming that you keep this for faxing and don't mix it with the PBX, there is nothing else to do. The line will go straight from the demarc to the fax machines.
If you want to add it in for 911, then you are adding complexity. You will now need an FXO device to convert it to SIP to connect to the PBX. Obviously if this is a hosted service, you are looping back and forth and it will still fail if the internet is down, PBX is down, etc.
My plan/desire (but can't have emotions here - right?) is to have everything on SIP. I'll need FXO? to convert the SIP lines to analog for the fax machines.
I would like to kill all POTS.Update on this - using SIP for fax will be completely dependent upon the amount of faxes. In the case of our main facility, it makes financial sense to keep the flat fee POTS line, the per min fee would be much higher for us. For our remote locations, moving to FXO and SIP would likely save us a few bucks, after the FXO box is paid for.
Would using a service like hellofax work out any better? https://app.hellofax.com/info/pricing
It's mainly just a math question.
the $20/m plan is to small, the $40/m plan could be a possibility - assuming the company is HIPAA compliant - and those that claim to be tack on a HUGE fee because they get to say they are HIPAA compliant... but, again, the $40/m plan could be doable as it's less than the $80 or so I pay now for two lines.
-
@DustinB3403 said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@JaredBusch said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
@Dashrender said in New PBX - on prem or off?:
The POTS line currently act as fax lines and 911.
There is no need to keep this for 911. You can, but there is no requirement to do so.
As for faxing...... Well you are medical and have abnormal faxing needs.
Assuming that you keep this for faxing and don't mix it with the PBX, there is nothing else to do. The line will go straight from the demarc to the fax machines.
If you want to add it in for 911, then you are adding complexity. You will now need an FXO device to convert it to SIP to connect to the PBX. Obviously if this is a hosted service, you are looping back and forth and it will still fail if the internet is down, PBX is down, etc.
My plan/desire (but can't have emotions here - right?) is to have everything on SIP. I'll need FXO? to convert the SIP lines to analog for the fax machines.
I would like to kill all POTS.Update on this - using SIP for fax will be completely dependent upon the amount of faxes. In the case of our main facility, it makes financial sense to keep the flat fee POTS line, the per min fee would be much higher for us. For our remote locations, moving to FXO and SIP would likely save us a few bucks, after the FXO box is paid for.
Would using a service like hellofax work out any better? https://app.hellofax.com/info/pricing
/sigh
-
https://www.hellosign.com/legal/hellofax-security
they don't claim HIPAA compliance.. so while they are likely OK, we wouldn't use them.
