Macy
South Of Insanity
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-7
join:2001-12-02
Pink Beanbag | reply to daystrom
Re: [SunRocket] Sunrocket down
Please continue here:
»[SunRocket] Is SunRocket down? |
|
mnylen
join:2004-11-19
Marlborough, CT | reply to ozamora
Down in CT as of last night. Have not even tried to deal with it this AM. My "boss" has had enough... |
|
KFC1
join:2005-09-07
Stoughton, MA | reply to ozamora
Down in Boston; can't call into my house line 
The service has been sporadic (mostly down) since I got up this morning (6:30AM EDT. |
|
ozamora
join:2004-06-07
Boca Raton, FL | reply to urkidding
Down in Boca Raton, FL
No dial tone, no incoming calls, no call forwarding.
Turning to be unacceptable. |
|
urkidding
| reply to LIGuy
Down in NJ. No dial tone. |
|
LIGuy
@optonline.net | reply to daystrom
Hey SR is still down in NY, or at least acting crazy - Outgoing seems to work. Call forwarding seems to work - but no incoming calls to the line itself |
|
priller
join:2000-10-20
Gainesville, VA | reply to voiplover
SR is beta?! They have been operating for at least a year now. |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH
 ·callwithus
·Axvoice
| It is the 3rd quarter of 1005 and there are now many quality voip providers to choose from. SR is giving a lot for the $, but beta comes with a price. I don't know what the cause of the outage is, but at least it happened in the wee hours so we know that it isn't overload and it isn't during peak hours.
With voip you should always have a backup! |
|
Ay4hf
@rr.com
 from:
rec9140 
| reply to yvliew
"down again. Why is there so many problems?????????? I'm gonna drop SR go back to land lines!!"
This is why we have 911 regulation. Too many people just don't do their homework before switching to VOIP. VOIP is NOT POTS. You should not have switched to VOIP if you wanted POTS reliability.
Outages should not be a surprise to you. Likewise, it should not be a surprise to you in the event your 911 call fails. |
|
yvliew
join:2002-05-13
Renton, WA | reply to daystrom
its down again. Why is there so many problems?????????? I'm gonna drop SR go back to land lines!! |
|
Kobra007_
join:2004-06-20
Longwood, FL
| reply to RockyBB
said by RockyBB :Hey druber! this probably doesn't apply to a VOIP provider, but it may help with your ISP situation. this movie with sound takes about 4 minutes... » www.internap.com/products/INTERNAP.html 4 minutes? It loaded in 15 seconds. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to druber
Hey druber! this probably doesn't apply to a VOIP provider, but it may help with your ISP situation. this movie with sound takes about 4 minutes...
»www.internap.com/products/INTERNAP.html |
|
druber
join:2000-04-11
Marlborough, MA
·VOIPo
| reply to RockyBB
depends on the IP ranges and such. keep in mind that your ATA might be able to see their SIP server (and vice-versa), but their server not be able to see some other external server or switch or whatever. i don't really know how all of this hangs together, just pointing out that it really isn't possible to have a 100% automatic failover in some cases... |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to druber
hey druber! in the VOIP world, don't the ATAs (gizmos) continually ping their servers so that the servers know where the ATAs are? if so, wouldn't the absence of those pings be clue enough that the carrier could quickly initiate a Plan B? If limitations are such that only one carrier can be used at a time, realistically how quickly could core internet backbone network routers be updated with new addressing info? If my guesses about the nature of last night's problem are correct, would that interval define the minimum outage duration for a problem of this type for any carrier? If instead of a single IP provider, the VOIP carrier used a backbone provider that aggregated Tier I carriers (i.e. Internap) and all the addresses pointed to the aggregator (so that packets from AT&T and UUNET and Sprint and Savvis, etc. were all directed to the aggregator's routers for delivery to the VOIP carrier), could last night's problem have been minimized or avoided altogether? |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH | reply to RockyBB
Rocky, Thanks for the informative reply.
Now if SR could only implement some working form of simultaneous ring, it would at least help when the gizmo is temporally not connecting instead of going for a fall back #. |
|
druber
join:2000-04-11
Marlborough, MA
·VOIPo
| reply to GTFan
just want to point out something: auto-failover at the backbone IP level cannot be made to work automatically (not reliably, anyway...) i work with an ISP who has two outside bandwidth providers, and more than once we'e had a failure where one of them was advertising our routes upstream, but not passing the traffic to us. as the customer of these providers, SR has no way to detect internal failures like that, only the ability to detect that a DS3 (or whatever) is down and switch to alternate bandwidth provider. |
|
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
| reply to RockyBB
Finally, a useful post out of you in an SR thread. Thanks for the information. I doubt part of your conclusion, however - no one running a VOIP shop with SR's volume would have a single IP provider. If they do, it's gross negligence on their part. Their auto failover may have failed, but you can bet that they have at least two. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to voiplover
*The dude that wants me to STFU should skip this post...
said by voiplover :Global Crossings & SunRocketIs the problem with Global Crossings or SR's server??? Inquiring minds want to know. For incoming calls, just trace it through. Example of how it's supposed to work: Heather wants to talk to you tonight, voiplover. So she picks up her SBC phone in Los Angeles and dials your SR number in NH. SBC sends the call to her long distance carrier, AT&T. AT&T brings the call to their switch in NH and delivers the call to the controlling local phone company, Verizon. Verizon does a lookup of the full 10 digits and finds that your number is handled by Global Crossing. Verizon sends the call to Global Crossing. Global looks up your 10 digit number and sees to terminate the call on a trunk group that ultimately routes to SR. SR's server gets the call request, looks up the 10 digits in its database, finds your account, looks for instructions. The instruction is typically "make the phone ring." (Alternatively, the instructions might be for voice mail, or forward to a cell phone.) So SR sends packets out over their IP provider to the IP address that your gizmo is sitting on, and the gizmo sends ring voltage to your phone, so it rings. You answer, and she says, "Hey, baby."
That was the example. Here's tonight's problem, as described by others: a call to your phone number hits the number provider (in this case Global Crossing) which seemingly was not able to forward the call to SR. But if Global is down, the call never gets to SR ... even if failover was instant with a triple redunant server farm with diverse facilities and 48 hour generator power backup, the call still wouldn't hit SR so you don't get the call. Any forwarding or failover options would never get a chance to work. The deal about failover is that it only works if the VOIP carrier can't complete the call to the device with the MAC address (the customer's internet is down, electric out, something unplugged). The failover feature is useless for all VOIP carriers if their phone number providers (the "CLECs") don't pass the calls to them. Every VOIP carrier (even the one that I cheerlead for) uses the same topology: buy numbers from a phone company, then forward the call to the server. This is the one weak link in the VOIP process for incoming calls to VOIP customers: getting the call out of the number provider to the VOIP server (the case tonight). Every other step can be engineered or backed up or diverse routed or mirror-imaged in some way.
So your question is how do you know if the problem was at the number provider (Global) or at SR's server? The answer, of course, is neither. If one could go online with SR, and activate forwarding and the calls start to flow to the cell phone, that means that the number provider is getting the calls to SR because SR is able to process them. It also means that SR's servers are working. If monkeying with the call forwarding had no effect on incoming calls, and no voice mail or cell phones could be reached, then those calls were not reaching SR. (This assumes that there are not simultaneous dual outages of both number provider and SR, which is extremely unlikely.)
The symptoms of those that posted here tonight are consistent: monkeying with the online configuration has some effect on the ultimate termination of the calls. That means that the number provider is moving the calls to SR, and that SR's servers are able to process them. The problem then would seem to be not in Global the number provider, Mr. Watson, but in Global the IP provider. If SR is being truthful, that the problems were caused by their selected vendor Global, and SR is receiving calls from Global, then the only thing that could be at fault is the link from SR's server to your gizmos, that link provided only by Global. If this speculation is somewhat close to the reality of the situation, then the long term solution to ensure that it doesn't happen again, is for SR to have a redundant (or backup) IP provider for the voice traffic coming out of their softswitch to their gizmos, with that redundancy kicking in automatically, not requiring manual intervention after a bunch of complaint calls.
In conclusion: number provider's fault? No. SR servers' fault: No. IP network provider's fault: Yes. SR bosses' fault (for not having auto backup with dual IP providers): Yes.
If noodler's around, maybe he can grade my analysis.... |
|
Kobra007_
join:2004-06-20
Longwood, FL
| reply to nycityny
said by nycityny :Solution to 911 problem: Tape on your phonesets the local numbers for: 1) Police 2) Fire 3) Ambulance/Hospital Oh yes, and keep VoicePulse. No 911 regular dial numbers here.. Trust me, i've tried to find them out, they don't seem to exist in a way I can locate. I've even gone in personally to try and get them. All they say is "Use 911"..
Not to mention the fact we have children in the house, and dialing 911 is quite simple in an emergency. |
|
devil24
Premium
join:2002-06-28
Houston, TX | reply to daystrom
One of SunRocket's biggest sunshine pumpers around here didn't post in this thread... I'm shocked  . |
|
