Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions


  • Service Provider

    I had an issue today with a client that uses VoIP.ms SIP trunks.

    They had users all attending webinar training from their desks and calling in to a conference bridge. Unfortunately they were having problems calling.

     -- Called SIP/voipms/12245013217
    -- Got SIP response 486 "Busy Here" back from 208.100.39.53:5060
    -- SIP/voipms-0000e49c is busy
    == Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:1/0/0)
    

    So I contacted support and found out the following.

    01:07:01 PM [Agent] Currently the Max. Simultaneous Calls to Same Number is restricted to 2 calls,due the security, However we can increase the amount, How many Simultaneous calls will you want?

    I had previous ran into a softcap of 5 simultaneous outbound calls, also noted for fraud protection by support.

    I asked for a list of all restrictions. I received this.

    Your support ticket has been updated:

    Hello Jared,

    We are going to proceed and let you know the restrictions that we have and > to let you decide if you want to change them.

    .-Outgoing channels default is 5, can be increased under request.

    .-Max sim calls to same number as mentioned in chat by default is 2, can be increased under request

    .-Call transfers are not enabled by default but can be enabled under request.

    .-Countries restricted (some countries are restricted due security) can be unblocked under request if an ID proof has been sent, if not is necessary one.

    .-You can check the other restrictions under Main menu>>account settings>>account restrictions.

    If you have any further doubt please let us know.

    Regards

    I asked where this was documented because on the main page, I have never read of these restrictions. I was given a link to their wiki: https://wiki.voip.ms/article/How_it_works

    At the bottom of that page are these details on channel restrictions.
    0_1488926470318_upload-50a51c03-7d30-494a-bf1e-436739a8a9b1

    So I will be opening a ticket on a bunch of accounts shortly to get these limits changed.

    Really the biggest issue is the same number restriction. I raised the outbound concurrent call limit a year ago at one site. No one else has needed it.


  • Service Provider

    Note: the thing about call transfers being blocked does not apply to anyone using a PBX. Because the PBX does the call transfers. that is for someone trying to just use two extensions direct on VoIP.ms to transfer a call.


  • Service Provider

    The lock on international calling is that some countries are unable to be allowed in the admin portal. You have to request those be unblocked.

    Generally I can allow any country needed so far.



  • Curious as to why so many use Voip.ms over Flowroute. I myself discovered flowroute before Voip.ms - but I like the way the process media directly to the carrier.

    Doesn't Voip.ms route all media to its Seattle server? Are costs/performance any different on Voip.ms?

    Last I tried Twilio's trunking service it left much to be desired. I wouldn't trust my DID's to them, but maybe to save on termination.


  • Service Provider

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    Curious as to why so many use Voip.ms over Flowroute. I myself discovered flowroute before Voip.ms - but I like the way the process media directly to the carrier.

    No particular reason. I learned of VoIP.ms prior to Flowroute and simply have had no reason to switch anything. The pricing is nearly identical, and I have only heard good things about their service.

    How many POPS does Flowroute have?



  • Interesting question about where the calls are routed. I know with a provider like Vitelity, if you are a wholesaler, they route calls through an SBC. At least that was true the last time I checked. I wonder how Voip.MS and FlowRoute handle it. We should do a comparison.


  • Service Provider

    @fuznutz04 said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    Interesting question about where the calls are routed. I know with a provider like Vitelity, if you are a wholesaler, they route calls through an SBC. At least that was true the last time I checked. I wonder how Voip.MS and FlowRoute handle it. We should do a comparison.

    With VoIP.ms, I select the pop closest to the PBX.

    So if I turn up a Vultr based FreePBX instance in Chicago, I choose the Chicago POP with VoIP.ms and have 1-3ms ping times.

    [[email protected] ~]# ping chicago2.voip.ms
    PING chicago2.voip.ms (208.100.39.53) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.27 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=1.22 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=1.20 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=1.19 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=1.29 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=1.29 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=1.24 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=1.25 ms
    64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=1.33 ms
    ^C
    --- chicago2.voip.ms ping statistics ---
    9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8033ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.198/1.259/1.333/0.052 ms
    

    After that I do not care how they route on the backend.



  • @JaredBusch yeah getting to choose where your traffic is routed to initially is a huge benefit. I wonder if Lowe route allows you to do that as well.



  • @JaredBusch they actually only carry signal and route media directly to the clec they are terminating to. I think they have a Cali and Texas proxy.

    They are different though in that they don't have an actual network. They do incredible things with correcting bad sip and rtp streams.



  • @JaredBusch I guess the point against this is whether voip.ms hide their crappy voice network behind a fast proxy.

    With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.

    Also flowroute has a prettier website. But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments. It doesnt matter but I feel like voip.ms has a website that's going to steal my credit card and sell it to India...


  • Service Provider

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.

    Who cares about this. You buy service. You stop caring once you hand off to them. If they cannot provide quality and you have a solid hand off, you find a different provider.


  • Service Provider

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    Also flowroute has a prettier website.

    You will find zero people arguing this point with you.


  • Service Provider

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments.

    I do not qualify myself and one or two others as everyone.



  • @JaredBusch said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments.

    I do not qualify myself and one or two others as everyone.

    Nor do I, I see it a lot around.



  • @JaredBusch said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    @rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:

    With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.

    Who cares about this. You buy service. You stop caring once you hand off to them. If they cannot provide quality and you have a solid hand off, you find a different provider.

    I think the transparent approach is preferable. Also they are the only pure SIP CLEC I've seen to date.

    Not sure if voip.ms has their own interconnects to local exchanges though, seems possible with all their proxy locations.

    I watched a VUC episode when flowroute was on years back and I agreed with a lot the guy had to say about the state of Clecs and providers like bandwidth. I had just always assumed voip.ms was more of a hobbyist provider like pbxes.com

    Then again, maybe pbxes.com is also used a lot in production....


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.