dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to DBOD

Re: [CallCentric] Recommended settings for 3CX can be problemati

Ouch, you've caught me here (thanks to your log!). I tried to create this test bed for you, to check 3CX's stickiness to particular SBC, last night, while was thinking about going to my own bed )

The "bypass0." was created as DN SRV RR within our DN servers, but wasn't actually provisioned within SBC layer allocated to support this new domain.

Considering the fact that 3CX's "stickiness" issue was not resolved - it keeps sticking to the same SBC - I now withdraw this test setup (related to "bypass0.") completely. If you want or see any reason in continuing doing so - you may keep playing with older "bypass." (non zero weights). Thanks for your time!

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
I am getting off the bypass0. Will leave one running on bypass. Don't see much value or harm in it for now.

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
reply to Iscream
Any estimated time for the 3CX SRV fix?

Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
That's the question to 3CX, not us.

We're just a messenger (providing SRV records) )

I'll ask our techs whether they have this issue on control with 3CX guys.

Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
We've stopped announcing "bypass0." as of this moment.
Thanks a lot for your time testing!

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
reply to Iscream
I can't ask 3CX since I don't pay for support. They are ignoring my query in the user forums.

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
reply to Iscream
Finally today they have looked at my concern in the user forum and are request wirehark logs. I'll sign on srv.callcentric.com and give it to them.

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
reply to Iscream
I just lost registration on the bypass domain. Going back to what is working for now. I am going to run the condition that fails to process the weighted SRVs send the wireshark logs to 3CX

DBOD

join:2012-10-17
reply to Iscream
Iscream, Check your IM. 3CX has expressed an interest in the non-zero weight SRV problem.


Nick3CX

@primehome.com
reply to Iscream
Can someone from Call centric contact me and explain to me what the problem is? This is a long thread and contains many attempts.

nb@3cx.com

Best thing to do is to send me a new account with new credentials and we will conduct a test to see.

Also if a change was made in callcentric servers, then of course the 3CX template must be updated and rechecked and callcentric must now be retested again against the latest version of 3CX and callcentric. Lets start on that first before blaming DNS resolution problems in 3CX...

Now I have checked the srv records of callcentric and they have the same weight.

Reading 3CX sources I see that if all weights in SRV response are 0 - 3CX selects first record always, otherwise it selects random record with probability corresponidng to weight (ie. if you have two records, first has weight 80 and second has weight 20 - than it selects first with probability 80%, or second with probability 20%).

This is correct behavior.
So I am not exactly sure what / where the problem is.

Also in my opinion, we should delete this post and come up with a document that works across all platforms - Just like we have with all the other providers we support. Because this post is full or trial and errors.

3CX Phone system has a configuration template in the installation which is selectable and should populate all options automatically. Options that at the time that the introp was made between 3CX and Callcentric, both callcentric and 3CX had approved. All these options were working with callcentric until Mid October / beginning of November.

Now of course, if things have changed, we need to retest this. To be honest, we have not attempted to retest with callcentric after the problems that occurred during the past month.

Let me know how you guys with to proceed.

Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
reply to DBOD
I've replied to your PM. Please check yours )

Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Nick3CX
Hi Nicky, I've been contacted (via PM - this is DSLR's instant messaging) by DBOD who passed to me your message and I've already replied back to him (although the PM status shows that he's not yet read it).

I've also forwarded that message to our head of support and other execs asking them to reply directly to you (and to DBOD).

Our head of support is in charge of doing interop testing with your software (he's doing it many years already with all vendors; he was the one who performed original testing - when your Callcentric template was created).

On another hand - I'm also always against of when software debugging and troubleshooting is brought to those boards in attempt to do it publicly [by probably hoping that a public pressure at vendor{s} in question may speed up the process - this is one small "negative" aspect of those boards' functioning, but there are many positive ones causing myself to frequently participate here] instead of contacting vendors in charge and letting them resolve the issue.

On 3rd hand ) I may tell that there were no changes in how Callcentric "servers" operate - your existing template works perfectly there, where DN "A" record resolution and plain "callcentric.com" domain is used, but the issues reported are related to DN SRV resolution with additional domain name introduced recently - "srv.callcentric.com" where your software works when all weights are all zeros (while always sticking to the first record resolved), but when weights are NON ZERO - the software behaves the way as DBOD posted above . Please note - the weights were always of all the same value (30) while 3CX software was sending REGISTER request to one resolved record, then was getting a 407 "authentication required" reply from our SBC, but then it was attempting another DN resolution - then sending its following Register request to _another_ SBC instead of staying in "dialog" and sending the reply to the same one which was used originally... That's the issue there as described by DBOD.

Please, create an account with DSLRs - then you'll be able to PM to me directly while I'll be able to do the same - I believe that will improve the effectiveness of the conversation )

Thanks for knocking in and welcome to this forum.