Recommendations for wireless VOIP phone.

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Brian Reay, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. Brian Reay

    Brian Reay Guest

    I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    on Skype.

    The Skype phone seems the cheapest option but I'm not clear if I can "just"
    use it on my WiFi without also having to "top it up" for the mobile option I
    don't plan to use.

    Anyone have any suggestions?

    TIA

    Brian
    Brian Reay, Mar 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian Reay

    Jose Guest

    On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:36:23 GMT, "Brian Reay" <>
    wrote:

    >I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    >on Skype.



    What advantage do you see in that over a cordless phone attached to an
    ATA?

    Regards,
    Jose
    Jose, Mar 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian Reay

    Jono Guest

    Jose used his keyboard to write :
    > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:36:23 GMT, "Brian Reay" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    >> on Skype.

    >
    >
    > What advantage do you see in that over a cordless phone attached to an
    > ATA?


    I can't think of any reason myself......there are skype/dect phones out
    there - not for me though.

    I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of these
    <http://www.snom.com/en/snom_m3.html> admittedly it is neither WiFi not
    Skype-capable!
    Jono, Mar 25, 2008
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Jono <> wrote:
    >Jose used his keyboard to write :
    >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:36:23 GMT, "Brian Reay" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    >>> on Skype.

    >>
    >>
    >> What advantage do you see in that over a cordless phone attached to an
    >> ATA?

    >
    >I can't think of any reason myself......there are skype/dect phones out
    >there - not for me though.
    >
    >I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of these
    ><http://www.snom.com/en/snom_m3.html> admittedly it is neither WiFi not
    >Skype-capable!


    I'm keen to try one out too - they're just a tad too expensive, like the
    rest of the Snom range )-: However I've had issues with the Siemens
    phones to the extent that I'm not going to buy anymore until I can be
    assured that their problem have been fixed, so there might not be much
    choice...

    I'm not personally a fan of Wi-Fi for voice comms though. It's just too
    easy for another PC on the same access point to render VoIP totally
    unusable if they upload/downlod a lot of data at the same time as a VoIP
    call. There are access points that claim to be able to manage traffic
    though, but how many consumers want to pay the premium for them? Not
    many, I suspect...

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 26, 2008
    #4
  5. Brian Reay

    Brian A Guest

    On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:36:23 GMT, "Brian Reay" <>
    wrote:

    >I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    >on Skype.
    >
    >The Skype phone seems the cheapest option but I'm not clear if I can "just"
    >use it on my WiFi without also having to "top it up" for the mobile option I
    >don't plan to use.
    >
    >Anyone have any suggestions?

    My first question is why are you wanting to use Skype.
    Is it
    1. You particularly want to call people on it that are not available
    on a standard landline phone.
    2. You think, mistakenly, that 'Skype out' is cheap.

    If it is (2) then go for an ATA that uses SIP, such as a Linksys
    SPA-3102, and connect a standard cordless phone to it. Alternatively
    you could get a SIP phone but I think the former is a better option.
    There are many SIP providers to choose from and they are far cheaper
    than Skype. If you want more info./advice then just ask.


    ---
    Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
    ---
    Brian A, Mar 26, 2008
    #5
  6. Gordon Henderson wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Jono <> wrote:
    >> Jose used his keyboard to write :
    >>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:36:23 GMT, "Brian Reay" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm thinking of buying a VOIP phone I can use on my own WiFi system at home
    >>>> on Skype.
    >>>
    >>> What advantage do you see in that over a cordless phone attached to an
    >>> ATA?

    >> I can't think of any reason myself......there are skype/dect phones out
    >> there - not for me though.
    >>
    >> I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of these
    >> <http://www.snom.com/en/snom_m3.html> admittedly it is neither WiFi not
    >> Skype-capable!

    >
    > I'm keen to try one out too - they're just a tad too expensive, like the
    > rest of the Snom range )-: However I've had issues with the Siemens
    > phones to the extent that I'm not going to buy anymore until I can be
    > assured that their problem have been fixed, so there might not be much
    > choice...
    >
    > I'm not personally a fan of Wi-Fi for voice comms though. It's just too
    > easy for another PC on the same access point to render VoIP totally
    > unusable if they upload/downlod a lot of data at the same time as a VoIP
    > call. There are access points that claim to be able to manage traffic
    > though, but how many consumers want to pay the premium for them? Not
    > many, I suspect...
    >
    > Gordon

    The M3 is still a bit of a rough diamond, good SIP VoIP devices but very
    dumb indeed.
    It's very good as an IP PBX extension, but not flexible/smart enough to
    be a standalone VoIP endpoint itself.
    - There's nothing like an outbound dialplan to have a proper LCR;
    - The shipped firmware is bogus, you NEED to update it to have a usable
    device;
    - The wireless is a bit feeble, too prone to lose connection with the base;
    - You can't register a handset on multiple bases (consequence, you can't
    roam between bases).
    Conclusion: if you have another device with the "intelligence" to
    properly fit your bill where the M3 can log onto (A@H, Trixbox) it can
    be a candidate; if you need a standalone SIP phone with a minimum degree
    of flexibility, look elsewhere (eg Siemens Gigaset).
    Personally I've never had problems with Siemens Gigaset phones
    (specifically the S450IP). Especially the last firmware release is
    pretty stable and reliable.

    HTH
    --
    ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
    ----------------------------
    Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
    $: Access Violation -- Core dumped
    ßøđiŋ¢µs, Mar 26, 2008
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Ã Ã¸Ä iŠ¢µs <> wrote:
    >The M3 is still a bit of a rough diamond, good SIP VoIP devices but very
    >dumb indeed.
    >It's very good as an IP PBX extension, but not flexible/smart enough to
    >be a standalone VoIP endpoint itself.
    >- There's nothing like an outbound dialplan to have a proper LCR;
    >- The shipped firmware is bogus, you NEED to update it to have a usable
    >device;
    >- The wireless is a bit feeble, too prone to lose connection with the base;
    >- You can't register a handset on multiple bases (consequence, you can't
    >roam between bases).
    >Conclusion: if you have another device with the "intelligence" to
    >properly fit your bill where the M3 can log onto (A@H, Trixbox) it can
    >be a candidate; if you need a standalone SIP phone with a minimum degree
    >of flexibility, look elsewhere (eg Siemens Gigaset).


    Interesting issues - thanks. I always use a PBX, so lack of LCR, dialplan,
    etc. isn't an issue. Shame you need to flash it immediately too, but I
    can live with that.

    >Personally I've never had problems with Siemens Gigaset phones
    >(specifically the S450IP). Especially the last firmware release is
    >pretty stable and reliable.


    What I need isn't "pretty stable", it's "rock solid". Right now, I
    have one company with 6 Siemens C450IP's - all flashed to the latest
    firmware - 3 in the main office, 3 in 3 remote shops. The shop ones use
    both their analogue and VoIP ports, the main office, VoIP only. All of
    them are fairly busy, especially the remote shop ones, although mostly
    with analogue calls. What I see is about once a week, maybe more, the
    phones stop working on the VoIP side. The analogue side is fine. The
    phone stay registered to the asterisk box, just won't take or make VoIP
    calls. Power cycling them makes them OK again.. For a few days to a week
    or so, by which time the shop has new staff who don't know what to do.

    Unfortunately, the calibre of staff in these (volenteer, charity) shops
    means that asking them to power cycle the base stations when they stop
    working, is a bit beyond them. It's now almost at the point where they're
    probably going to ask me to replace them or give them their money back.

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Brian Reay

    Jose Guest

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:51:17 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    <> wrote:


    >Unfortunately, the calibre of staff in these (volenteer, charity) shops
    >means that asking them to power cycle the base stations when they stop
    >working, is a bit beyond them. It's now almost at the point where they're
    >probably going to ask me to replace them or give them their money back.


    Do you mean:

    1) just switching the handset off/on, or

    2) switching off/on the power to the base stations?

    If number 2, you could connect the AC adapter to timer/watch plug,
    that would switch off/on the power to the base unit every night.


    Now, if I understand correctly, do you connect these phones to a
    modem/router, for the Voip calls, and they act as ATAs?
    If so, does these come any cheaper than cordless phones with 2 line
    capacity, with an ATA feeding one of the lines, for Voip?


    Best,
    Jose
    Jose, Mar 26, 2008
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Jose <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:51:17 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Unfortunately, the calibre of staff in these (volenteer, charity) shops
    >>means that asking them to power cycle the base stations when they stop
    >>working, is a bit beyond them. It's now almost at the point where they're
    >>probably going to ask me to replace them or give them their money back.

    >
    >Do you mean:
    >
    >1) just switching the handset off/on, or
    >
    >2) switching off/on the power to the base stations?


    The base stations need power cycling. The handsets are OK.

    >If number 2, you could connect the AC adapter to timer/watch plug,
    >that would switch off/on the power to the base unit every night.


    You know what, that's such an easy solution I'd not thought of it. I was
    looking for a remote reboot facility, etc. but sometimes a "low-tech"
    solution might be the answer....

    I do like the Siemens phones and the come in at "the right price" too. I
    even use them at home where they were the first wireless phone to pass
    the "wife test"...

    >Now, if I understand correctly, do you connect these phones to a
    >modem/router, for the Voip calls, and they act as ATAs?


    Yes. The Siemens units have a base station with both an Ethernet socket
    and an (FXO) analogue phone connection to connect to a BT wall socket. The
    handsets can switch between PSTN or VoIP calls.

    >If so, does these come any cheaper than cordless phones with 2 line
    >capacity, with an ATA feeding one of the lines, for Voip?


    Well... I did try them with ATAs originally, but they couldn't get on
    with them. Claimed they never worked (and, as usual, every time I tried
    them, they worked jsut fine) By then, I'd installed Siemens ones in HQ
    who just needed the SIP side of things, (analogue was handled by one of
    my asterisk PBXs), so the shops wanted the same handsets, so we got 3
    more for the shops, and they've been nothing but trouble, ever since.

    Now to wander up to the local electrical shoppie and look for 4 timers!
    (the 3 in HQ are all on the same power strip)

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 27, 2008
    #9
  10. Brian Reay

    ßødincµs Guest

    Gordon Henderson wrote:
    > Interesting issues - thanks. I always use a PBX, so lack of LCR, dialplan,
    > etc. isn't an issue. Shame you need to flash it immediately too, but I
    > can live with that.

    It's not an issue, it's easy and painlessly done through the handset -
    no need for a PC on the same network.
    And as every SNOM phone you can provision them through a properly hand
    crafted text file.

    >> Personally I've never had problems with Siemens Gigaset phones
    >> (specifically the S450IP). Especially the last firmware release is
    >> pretty stable and reliable.

    >
    > What I need isn't "pretty stable", it's "rock solid". Right now, I
    > have one company with 6 Siemens C450IP's - all flashed to the latest
    > firmware - 3 in the main office, 3 in 3 remote shops. The shop ones use
    > both their analogue and VoIP ports, the main office, VoIP only. All of
    > them are fairly busy, especially the remote shop ones, although mostly
    > with analogue calls. What I see is about once a week, maybe more, the
    > phones stop working on the VoIP side. The analogue side is fine.

    If this happens regularly with registrations to an Asterisk-based
    server, probably the setup is incorrect.
    1. Do you have all the necessary ports forwarding in place on the router
    from the public IP to to the phone private IP (5060-5070 and 5004-5010
    UDP)? If not, set them up.
    2. Is the phone base onto a static IP (highly recommended)? If not,
    assign it a private static IP in the range of the router BUT NOT IN THE
    ROUTER DHCP RANGE.
    3. What method do you use to do NAT traversal, STUN or Outbound Proxy?
    Asterisk isn't happy to be the outbound proxy, so you need a STUN server
    to let the Siemens know its own public IP and properly populate the SIP
    REGISTER message with the public IP, not its own internal IP.
    4. Do you have - by any chance - the "qualify=yes" parameter in the
    extension definition? Take it off.
    5. Look at the full Asterisk log (/var/log/asterisk/full) to see if you
    have any strange activity from the phones (look for 45x codes).

    Power cycling the base will dramatically shorten the lifespan of the
    PSU. They have a high mortality rate when they cool off and warm up
    again repeatedly.

    Caveat emptor: I never dealt with C450IPs, we use S450IPs. The firmware
    and the base unit should be the same tho...

    HTH

    --
    ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
    ----------------------------
    Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
    $: Access Violation -- Core dumped
    ßødincµs, Mar 27, 2008
    #10
  11. Brian Reay

    Nick Guest

    Jose wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:51:17 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Unfortunately, the calibre of staff in these (volenteer, charity) shops
    >> means that asking them to power cycle the base stations when they stop
    >> working, is a bit beyond them. It's now almost at the point where they're
    >> probably going to ask me to replace them or give them their money back.

    >
    > Do you mean:
    >
    > 1) just switching the handset off/on, or
    >
    > 2) switching off/on the power to the base stations?
    >
    > If number 2, you could connect the AC adapter to timer/watch plug,
    > that would switch off/on the power to the base unit every night.
    >


    That presumes a certain type of fault.

    It may be that the crashes are actually random and not connected to how
    long the phone has been on. With an intermittent bug it is hard to tell.



    >
    Nick, Mar 27, 2008
    #11
  12. In article <>, ßødincµs <> wrote:
    >Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >> Interesting issues - thanks. I always use a PBX, so lack of LCR, dialplan,
    >> etc. isn't an issue. Shame you need to flash it immediately too, but I
    >> can live with that.

    >It's not an issue, it's easy and painlessly done through the handset -
    >no need for a PC on the same network.
    >And as every SNOM phone you can provision them through a properly hand
    >crafted text file.
    >
    >>> Personally I've never had problems with Siemens Gigaset phones
    >>> (specifically the S450IP). Especially the last firmware release is
    >>> pretty stable and reliable.

    >>
    >> What I need isn't "pretty stable", it's "rock solid". Right now, I
    >> have one company with 6 Siemens C450IP's - all flashed to the latest
    >> firmware - 3 in the main office, 3 in 3 remote shops. The shop ones use
    >> both their analogue and VoIP ports, the main office, VoIP only. All of
    >> them are fairly busy, especially the remote shop ones, although mostly
    >> with analogue calls. What I see is about once a week, maybe more, the
    >> phones stop working on the VoIP side. The analogue side is fine.


    >If this happens regularly with registrations to an Asterisk-based
    >server, probably the setup is incorrect.


    I really don't think it is.

    >1. Do you have all the necessary ports forwarding in place on the router
    >from the public IP to to the phone private IP (5060-5070 and 5004-5010
    >UDP)? If not, set them up.


    Yes. As I said, the phones work for some time - days/weeks depending on
    how busy they are. I know (from reading some forums on the Siemens sites)
    that I'm not alone with this issue.

    And note that this is also a problem with phones on the same LAN as the
    PBX, so no nat/stun/anything needed in these phones, yet the same thing
    happens; the phones indicate that they are still registerd, asterisk
    shows them to be still regsiterd, but the phones reject calls and can't
    make VoIP calls either. The analogue side seems unnaffected.


    >2. Is the phone base onto a static IP (highly recommended)? If not,
    >assign it a private static IP in the range of the router BUT NOT IN THE
    >ROUTER DHCP RANGE.


    Why?

    >3. What method do you use to do NAT traversal, STUN or Outbound Proxy?
    >Asterisk isn't happy to be the outbound proxy, so you need a STUN server
    >to let the Siemens know its own public IP and properly populate the SIP
    >REGISTER message with the public IP, not its own internal IP.


    I run my own stun server.

    >4. Do you have - by any chance - the "qualify=yes" parameter in the
    >extension definition? Take it off.


    Why?

    >5. Look at the full Asterisk log (/var/log/asterisk/full) to see if you
    >have any strange activity from the phones (look for 45x codes).


    That's an implmentation dependant log-file and not present on my
    systems, however there is a string of 405 errors from these phones, but
    I'm led to beilive that're "mostly harmles":

    -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.36
    -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.35

    >Power cycling the base will dramatically shorten the lifespan of the
    >PSU. They have a high mortality rate when they cool off and warm up
    >again repeatedly.


    Maybe, but I have no choice in this matter right now. (Other than waste
    more money on this client and replace 6 Siemens units with 6 Snom units
    and 4 extra handsets)

    >Caveat emptor: I never dealt with C450IPs, we use S450IPs. The firmware
    >and the base unit should be the same tho...


    FWIW: I make/sell/install asterisk based PBXs. I have dozens of boxes
    out there and 100's (1000's? I don't know what my resellers get up to)
    of phones connected to them, on-site and off-site. The Siemens phones
    are the only ones that give me regular problems. (can't speak for the
    resellers though) So I'm not going to buy any more Siemens phones (of
    any type) until I get a resolution on this issue.

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 27, 2008
    #12
  13. Brian Reay

    Jose Guest

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:48 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    <> wrote:

    >>If so, does these come any cheaper than cordless phones with 2 line
    >>capacity, with an ATA feeding one of the lines, for Voip?

    >
    >Well... I did try them with ATAs originally, but they couldn't get on
    >with them. Claimed they never worked (and, as usual, every time I tried
    >them, they worked jsut fine) By then, I'd installed Siemens ones in HQ
    >who just needed the SIP side of things, (analogue was handled by one of
    >my asterisk PBXs), so the shops wanted the same handsets, so we got 3
    >more for the shops, and they've been nothing but trouble, ever since.


    I see what you mean... Money wyse, how about and SPA3102, or similar
    stuff from Gransdstream, plus an ordinary cordless phone?



    >Now to wander up to the local electrical shoppie and look for 4 timers!
    >(the 3 in HQ are all on the same power strip)


    Good luck!

    Jose
    Jose, Mar 27, 2008
    #13
  14. Brian Reay

    Jose Guest

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:35:07 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    <> wrote:

    > The Siemens phones
    >are the only ones that give me regular problems. (can't speak for the
    >resellers though) So I'm not going to buy any more Siemens phones (of
    >any type) until I get a resolution on this issue.


    Smart choice: time really is money, and more things than money can
    buy.

    I'd sell you Gransdtreams FXO + FXS ATAs, and reliable cordless
    phones, if I had a business near you ;-)

    Jose
    Jose, Mar 27, 2008
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Jose <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:48 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>>If so, does these come any cheaper than cordless phones with 2 line
    >>>capacity, with an ATA feeding one of the lines, for Voip?

    >>
    >>Well... I did try them with ATAs originally, but they couldn't get on
    >>with them. Claimed they never worked (and, as usual, every time I tried
    >>them, they worked jsut fine) By then, I'd installed Siemens ones in HQ
    >>who just needed the SIP side of things, (analogue was handled by one of
    >>my asterisk PBXs), so the shops wanted the same handsets, so we got 3
    >>more for the shops, and they've been nothing but trouble, ever since.

    >
    >I see what you mean... Money wyse, how about and SPA3102, or similar
    >stuff from Gransdstream, plus an ordinary cordless phone?


    Well, I started with Grandstream units... (BT488's), so going back
    to an ATA might not go down well with them. There's also the law of
    dininishing returns with this one - they take up more time than everyone
    else combined, and I've been working with them for over a year now )-:

    I need to cut down on wiring/cables, etc. in the shops - they've already
    managed to set one Ethernet cable on-fire (don't ask!) Sometimes I
    wonder why I bother...

    >>Now to wander up to the local electrical shoppie and look for 4 timers!
    >>(the 3 in HQ are all on the same power strip)

    >
    >Good luck!


    Cheers,

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 27, 2008
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    Jose <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:35:07 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> The Siemens phones
    >>are the only ones that give me regular problems. (can't speak for the
    >>resellers though) So I'm not going to buy any more Siemens phones (of
    >>any type) until I get a resolution on this issue.

    >
    >Smart choice: time really is money, and more things than money can
    >buy.
    >
    >I'd sell you Gransdtreams FXO + FXS ATAs, and reliable cordless
    >phones, if I had a business near you ;-)


    What is your business? Reply in email if you like ...
    (Although I have a good reseller deal with at least one UK voip bits
    supplier...)

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 27, 2008
    #16
  17. Brian Reay

    ßødincµs Guest

    Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >> If this happens regularly with registrations to an Asterisk-based
    >> server, probably the setup is incorrect.

    >
    > I really don't think it is.

    Well, it doesn't happen to me with 35 S450IP registered onto 12 Trixbox
    based PBXes, both internal and external. so I should be doing something
    right...

    >> 1. Do you have all the necessary ports forwarding in place on the router
    >>from the public IP to to the phone private IP (5060-5070 and 5004-5010
    >> UDP)? If not, set them up.

    > Yes. As I said, the phones work for some time - days/weeks depending on
    > how busy they are. I know (from reading some forums on the Siemens sites)
    > that I'm not alone with this issue.

    How "busy" are the phones?

    > And note that this is also a problem with phones on the same LAN as the
    > PBX, so no nat/stun/anything needed in these phones, yet the same thing
    > happens; the phones indicate that they are still registerd, asterisk
    > shows them to be still regsiterd, but the phones reject calls and can't
    > make VoIP calls either. The analogue side seems unnaffected.

    Can I see a trace of a failed inbound call?

    >> 2. Is the phone base onto a static IP (highly recommended)? If not,
    >> assign it a private static IP in the range of the router BUT NOT IN THE
    >> ROUTER DHCP RANGE.

    > Why?

    Well, if you don't know why it's better you do it without asking, innit? ;-)

    >> 3. What method do you use to do NAT traversal, STUN or Outbound Proxy?
    >> Asterisk isn't happy to be the outbound proxy, so you need a STUN server
    >> to let the Siemens know its own public IP and properly populate the SIP
    >> REGISTER message with the public IP, not its own internal IP.

    > I run my own stun server.

    How often the Siemens poll the STUN server?

    >> 4. Do you have - by any chance - the "qualify=yes" parameter in the
    >> extension definition? Take it off.

    > Why?

    It's an unnecessary burden on the SIP channel and can lead to memory
    leaks in the Siemens.

    >> 5. Look at the full Asterisk log (/var/log/asterisk/full) to see if you
    >> have any strange activity from the phones (look for 45x codes).

    > That's an implmentation dependant log-file and not present on my
    > systems, however there is a string of 405 errors from these phones, but
    > I'm led to beilive that're "mostly harmles":
    >
    > -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.36
    > -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.35

    The Siemens phone is telling you that something your SIP server does is
    wrong. Again, that doesn't happen to me.
    Errors can lead to memory leaks and then the obvious OS / SIP stack
    crash in the base unit.

    >> Power cycling the base will dramatically shorten the lifespan of the
    >> PSU. They have a high mortality rate when they cool off and warm up
    >> again repeatedly.

    > Maybe, but I have no choice in this matter right now. (Other than waste
    > more money on this client and replace 6 Siemens units with 6 Snom units
    > and 4 extra handsets)

    Your immediate choice is obvious, buy a timer and powercycle the base
    unit. In the long run however, keep a close eye on the issues I pointed
    out to you, you may find a solution.

    >> Caveat emptor: I never dealt with C450IPs, we use S450IPs. The firmware
    >> and the base unit should be the same tho...

    > FWIW: I make/sell/install asterisk based PBXs. I have dozens of boxes
    > out there and 100's (1000's? I don't know what my resellers get up to)
    > of phones connected to them, on-site and off-site. The Siemens phones
    > are the only ones that give me regular problems. (can't speak for the
    > resellers though) So I'm not going to buy any more Siemens phones (of
    > any type) until I get a resolution on this issue.

    Siemens Phones are using large chinks of FOSS code (see the full manual
    appendix), if there was a problem like that I reckon the FOSS community
    would have acted to fix it.
    I don't dispute you know your stuff, but if you have a problem I don't
    have... well, should I say more?

    HTH

    --
    ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
    ----------------------------
    Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
    $: Access Violation -- Core dumped
    ßødincµs, Mar 27, 2008
    #17
  18. In article <>, ßødincµs <> wrote:
    >Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >>> If this happens regularly with registrations to an Asterisk-based
    >>> server, probably the setup is incorrect.

    >>
    >> I really don't think it is.

    >Well, it doesn't happen to me with 35 S450IP registered onto 12 Trixbox
    >based PBXes, both internal and external. so I should be doing something
    >right...


    Indeed - but I have C460IP's and you have S450IPs... To quote one
    supplier, S = Superior, C = Cheap...

    >>> 1. Do you have all the necessary ports forwarding in place on the router
    >>>from the public IP to to the phone private IP (5060-5070 and 5004-5010
    >>> UDP)? If not, set them up.

    >> Yes. As I said, the phones work for some time - days/weeks depending on
    >> how busy they are. I know (from reading some forums on the Siemens sites)
    >> that I'm not alone with this issue.

    >How "busy" are the phones?


    These are charity shops selling to people on low incomes. They are
    taking 20-30 calls an hour when it's busy. They want to be able to call
    the other shops & HQ to check their stock when a customer comes in
    looking for something.

    >> And note that this is also a problem with phones on the same LAN as the
    >> PBX, so no nat/stun/anything needed in these phones, yet the same thing
    >> happens; the phones indicate that they are still registerd, asterisk
    >> shows them to be still regsiterd, but the phones reject calls and can't
    >> make VoIP calls either. The analogue side seems unnaffected.

    >Can I see a trace of a failed inbound call?


    When they next break, I'll see if I can get one.

    >>> 2. Is the phone base onto a static IP (highly recommended)? If not,
    >>> assign it a private static IP in the range of the router BUT NOT IN THE
    >>> ROUTER DHCP RANGE.

    >> Why?


    >Well, if you don't know why it's better you do it without asking, innit? ;-)


    No, I rarely do things without asking. (and I do know how DHCP works and
    how to allocate ranges in my routers - I was asking why I should move
    to a static IP address) If the phone behaves differntly under DHCP to
    static IP addresses then there is something wrong with the phone. FWIW:
    My unit at home has a static IP address and I've had it do the same thing.

    >>> 3. What method do you use to do NAT traversal, STUN or Outbound Proxy?
    >>> Asterisk isn't happy to be the outbound proxy, so you need a STUN server
    >>> to let the Siemens know its own public IP and properly populate the SIP
    >>> REGISTER message with the public IP, not its own internal IP.

    >> I run my own stun server.

    >How often the Siemens poll the STUN server?


    The ones in the same LAN as the PBX ... Never because they don't use STUN
    becasse they are on the same LAN. STUN, NAT, Networking, etc. does not
    seem to be a factor.

    >>> 4. Do you have - by any chance - the "qualify=yes" parameter in the
    >>> extension definition? Take it off.

    >> Why?

    >It's an unnecessary burden on the SIP channel and can lead to memory
    >leaks in the Siemens.


    So it's a bug in the Siemens then.... The other phones & ATAs connected
    seem to be just fine with this - Grandstream, Snom, Nokia, Linksys, etc.

    >>> 5. Look at the full Asterisk log (/var/log/asterisk/full) to see if you
    >>> have any strange activity from the phones (look for 45x codes).

    >> That's an implmentation dependant log-file and not present on my
    >> systems, however there is a string of 405 errors from these phones, but
    >> I'm led to beilive that're "mostly harmles":
    >>
    >> -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.36
    >> -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.35

    >The Siemens phone is telling you that something your SIP server does is
    >wrong. Again, that doesn't happen to me.
    >Errors can lead to memory leaks and then the obvious OS / SIP stack
    >crash in the base unit.


    Again, indicating a bug in the Simens units.

    This particular one is fairly well documented and it doesn't appear to
    be a bug, just a missing feature.

    Eg.

    http://www.mail-archive.com//msg189255.html

    >I don't dispute you know your stuff, but if you have a problem I don't
    >have... well, should I say more?


    I also have hardware you don't have, so it might just be that Siemens
    have fixed the issues in the S450IP's and not bothered with their cheaper
    C460IP's ... It would really surprise me if the software and hardware
    in the S450's was identical to that on the C460's.

    The bottom-line is that I won't be buying any more Siemens units (of
    any model or type) until I get these ones fixed. Meanwhile I'll switch
    to Snoms, or ATAs & Cheap analogue ones for new customers, and maybe
    this one, if daily rebooting doesn't help.

    Cheers,

    Gordon
    Gordon Henderson, Mar 27, 2008
    #18
  19. Brian Reay

    Paul Hayes Guest

    ßødincµs wrote:
    > Gordon Henderson wrote:
    >>> If this happens regularly with registrations to an Asterisk-based
    >>> server, probably the setup is incorrect.

    >>
    >> I really don't think it is.

    > Well, it doesn't happen to me with 35 S450IP registered onto 12 Trixbox
    > based PBXes, both internal and external. so I should be doing something
    > right...
    >
    >>> 1. Do you have all the necessary ports forwarding in place on the
    >>> router from the public IP to to the phone private IP (5060-5070 and
    >>> 5004-5010 UDP)? If not, set them up.

    >> Yes. As I said, the phones work for some time - days/weeks depending on
    >> how busy they are. I know (from reading some forums on the Siemens sites)
    >> that I'm not alone with this issue.


    Are you sure it's the same issue? I've read about issues where phones
    fail to re-register after an Internet connection has been down for a
    short while until rebooted (only an issue with a hosted PBX though).
    This is an issue I have been trying to replicate in my office without
    much luck but I've had a couple of people reporting it, Siemens
    developer guys in Germany are also looking into it as we speak.

    > How "busy" are the phones?
    >
    >> And note that this is also a problem with phones on the same LAN as the
    >> PBX, so no nat/stun/anything needed in these phones, yet the same thing
    >> happens; the phones indicate that they are still registerd, asterisk
    >> shows them to be still regsiterd, but the phones reject calls and can't
    >> make VoIP calls either. The analogue side seems unnaffected.

    > Can I see a trace of a failed inbound call?


    Me too! Or a trace of when an outbound call is attempted...

    >
    >>> 2. Is the phone base onto a static IP (highly recommended)? If not,
    >>> assign it a private static IP in the range of the router BUT NOT IN
    >>> THE ROUTER DHCP RANGE.

    >> Why?

    > Well, if you don't know why it's better you do it without asking, innit?
    > ;-)


    The only reason to use static IPs would be to make manual administration
    of the units easier. There's absolutely no reason to have SIP UAs on
    static IPs when they are registering to the server, half the point of
    the registration process is so the server knows the UA's IP address.

    >
    >>> 3. What method do you use to do NAT traversal, STUN or Outbound
    >>> Proxy? Asterisk isn't happy to be the outbound proxy, so you need a
    >>> STUN server to let the Siemens know its own public IP and properly
    >>> populate the SIP REGISTER message with the public IP, not its own
    >>> internal IP.

    >> I run my own stun server.

    > How often the Siemens poll the STUN server?


    In my experience STUN rarely works anyway, all it does is allow a device
    to find out what type of NAT it is behind. Since Gordon has said that
    these phones are already on the same network as the Asterisk box,
    there's no need for STUN, outbound proxy or any of that anyway.

    >
    >>> 4. Do you have - by any chance - the "qualify=yes" parameter in the
    >>> extension definition? Take it off.

    >> Why?

    > It's an unnecessary burden on the SIP channel and can lead to memory
    > leaks in the Siemens.


    Memory leaks? I'm very interested in some evidence of that, can you
    contact me off list if you have experienced this and have some evidence
    of why you think it's caused a memory leak? paul@ the domain in my From
    address.

    >
    >>> 5. Look at the full Asterisk log (/var/log/asterisk/full) to see if
    >>> you have any strange activity from the phones (look for 45x codes).

    >> That's an implmentation dependant log-file and not present on my
    >> systems, however there is a string of 405 errors from these phones, but
    >> I'm led to beilive that're "mostly harmles":
    >>
    >> -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.36
    >> -- Got SIP response 405 "Method Not Allowed" back from 192.168.0.35

    > The Siemens phone is telling you that something your SIP server does is
    > wrong. Again, that doesn't happen to me.
    > Errors can lead to memory leaks and then the obvious OS / SIP stack
    > crash in the base unit.
    >


    These aren't errors, they are responses. They happen when Asterisk send
    a Subscribe message to the Siemens phone, because the Siemens phone
    doesn't support Subscribe/Notify at the moment. Again, where is this
    talk of memory leaks coming from?

    >>> Power cycling the base will dramatically shorten the lifespan of the
    >>> PSU. They have a high mortality rate when they cool off and warm up
    >>> again repeatedly.

    >> Maybe, but I have no choice in this matter right now. (Other than waste
    >> more money on this client and replace 6 Siemens units with 6 Snom units
    >> and 4 extra handsets)

    > Your immediate choice is obvious, buy a timer and powercycle the base
    > unit. In the long run however, keep a close eye on the issues I pointed
    > out to you, you may find a solution.
    >
    >>> Caveat emptor: I never dealt with C450IPs, we use S450IPs. The
    >>> firmware and the base unit should be the same tho...


    No, the C460IP and S450IP have different hardware and different firmware
    in the base station.

    cheers,
    Paul.
    Paul Hayes, Mar 27, 2008
    #19
  20. Brian Reay

    Jose Guest

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:24 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson
    <> wrote:

    >>>I'd sell you Gransdtreams FXO + FXS ATAs, and reliable cordless

    >>phones, if I had a business near you ;-)

    >
    >What is your business? Reply in email if you like ...
    >(Although I have a good reseller deal with at least one UK voip bits
    >supplier...)



    I'm "only" a translator ;-) who happens to know more about Voip than
    my hardware supplier - the national importer of Linksys here did not
    have the SPA3102, untill I told my supplier/friend about it, and he
    was told the damn thing was pretty hard to setup LOL

    Tomorrow I'll start translating a software UI for a big name in IP
    networks/communication integration :))


    Good luck,
    Jose
    Jose, Mar 28, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dg
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,175
    Isaac
    Mar 21, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    528
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    619
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,663
    Prometheus
    Aug 16, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    841
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page