 ·Frontier Communi..
|
to graysonf
Re: Google Voice DID forward + CallCentric Free DIDsaid by graysonf:Have you tried the suggested IPKall DID yet? So far that has been working for me in the limited testing I have done. Gotta make time to check that out. |
|
 graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
All you need to have is an email address and your CC SIP URI ready when you fill out the form. The password they are asking for is the one for your new IPKall account, not for your email address. |
|
| |
said by graysonf:All you need to have is an email address and your CC SIP URI ready when you fill out the form. And a reminder: To register CallCentric on an ATA or IP phone, use [callcentric.com] To do SIP forwarding to CallCentric (also if doing IPKall) then use [in.callcentric.com] |
|
·Frontier Communi..
|
said by PX Eliezer1:
And a reminder:
To register CallCentric on an ATA or IP phone, use [callcentric.com]
To do SIP forwarding to CallCentric (also if doing IPKall) then use [in.callcentric.com]
Thank you for that. I know I would have been frustrated debugging.  |
|
| tired_runner |
to graysonf
said by graysonf:All you need to have is an email address and your CC SIP URI ready when you fill out the form. The password they are asking for is the one for your new IPKall account, not for your email address. Alright... So I registered and put in all the details... If I'm not mistaken, with this setup I'm now doing the following: Inbound call to my GV DID goes-----> Google Voice ---> IPKall ---> CallCentric ---> my ATA ---> finally my phone Is this how you're doing it? I placed a few test calls. So far all have come through. |
|
graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
That's how I am doing it when it is enabled. My ATA is an OBi200. However, I am not using the IPKall forward just now as GV can forward directly to my OBi. This will stop working in May, so at that time I will enable the GV forward to IPKall. |
|
·Frontier Communi..
|
I wanted to do the convoluted GV > IPK > CC > ATA setup now to gauge its reliability and to see if it's tolerable to continue enjoying the cost savings that way beyond May. If not, I would have no choice but to consider porting my DID away from GV ahead of the May cutoff. |
|
brawney
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Frederick, MD |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:Inbound call to my GV DID goes-----> Google Voice ---> IPKall ---> CallCentric ---> my ATA ---> finally my phone This sounds like what you want to be doing. Not to hijack this thread, but this is a related question. Generally speaking, when you add hops into the path is this a big issue for quality? I know in this case it's needed because of the GV issue forwarding straight to CC. And in this case it's only one hop. But what if, for example, you forwarded it from CC (based on some rule) to yet another provider (assuming I could do that)? Example: Google Voice ---> IPKall ---> CallCentric ---> voip.ms ---> my ATA ---> finally my phone Is this a "horrible" thing, or is it something to generally avoid - keeping hops as low as possible for obvious reasons? |
|
·Frontier Communi..
|
Call quality is the reason why I ask if this will be tolerable and why I want to test before I decide where to take my DID. In my network engineer-minded opinion, adding extra entities between a caller and me has to inevitably lead to call quality degradation. |
|
| |
said by tired_runner:In my network engineer-minded opinion, adding extra entities between a caller and me has to inevitably lead to call quality degradation. Of course, and additional potential points of failure as well. |
|
| PX Eliezer1 |
to brawney
said by brawney:Google Voice ---> IPKall ---> CallCentric ---> voip.ms ---> my ATA ---> finally my phone Why would you need CC in there at all? You can do SIP URI forwarding (including the use of IPKall) directly to Voip.MS if you have a Voip.MS account anyway. » wiki.voip.ms/article/SIP_URIAs well, consider merging the last two steps by just getting an IP phone. It really is better than having separate ATA and analogue phone. |
|
|
brawney
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Frederick, MD |
brawney
Premium Member
2014-Jan-4 12:07 pm
said by PX Eliezer1:Why would you need CC in there at all? Just an example (although it may be a silly example). I know you can go straight to voip.ms, but I was thinking maybe if there was a forwarding "rule" you wanted to apply in CC. Here is a better example. I have a voip.ms account and a CC account and I have one DID at each. I have an ATA that only works with 1 provider. I register the ATA to CC and then have to forward my DID calls from voip.ms to CC. I'd rather not have to do this, but if it's generally an acceptable practice then I might be OK with it. It is only 1 hop. My only other option would be to buy a new ATA or get a PBX that can register with 2 providers and accept the call directly from each. Question: will the Obi 110 handle this scenario? Can the 110 register with both providers and accept the inbound call from either? |
|
MangoUse DMZ and you get a kick in the dick.
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net |
Mango
Premium Member
2014-Jan-4 12:16 pm
Yes it can. |
|
graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
to tired_runner
That's the plan here, more or less. Porting out of GV is more trouble than it's worth to me. I'll just take a new local DID number from some other VoIP provider.
As far as what's currently happening, I find the IPKall DID more reliable than the free Callcentric DIDs I have. |
|
| |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:Inbound call to my GV DID goes-----> Google Voice ---> IPKall ---> CallCentric ---> my ATA ---> finally my phone GV---> IPKall---->ATA---->phone How I did it years ago, even before GV. If you don't have a consistent IP address then you'll have to stick in something like no-ip.com between IPkall and ATA. Credit goes to Dracofelis. |
|
| |
to graysonf
I would take out CC from the equation alltogether but IPKall forbids SIP registrations. |
|
graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
to deskjockey
Can you explain this further? Exactly what do you tell IPKall to forward to? |
|
| |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:I would take out CC from the equation alltogether but IPKall forbids SIP registrations. I don't have much time to research how I had mine set up years ago. I'm considering doing SS anyway seeing I still have an account. However I kept Dracofelis site link all these years. I haven't had time to read it but see if that will help you. » faq.sipbroker.com/tiki-i ··· 20Sipura |
|
graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
Thanks for the link. I hope someone can translate it for an OBi. |
|
| |
I would start by telling OBI where IPKall is and tell IPKall where OBI is and don't mess with all the other settings and see what happens. However you may need a stun server setting to help them find each other. We are 5 months out so somebody will figure it out by then anyway. |
|
·Frontier Communi..
|
to deskjockey
said by deskjockey:
I don't have much time to research how I had mine set up years ago. I'm considering doing SS anyway seeing I still have an account. However I kept Dracofelis site link all these years. I haven't had time to read it but see if that will help you. »faq.sipbroker.com/tiki-i ··· 20Sipura
Interesting... I guess I can have IPkall forward the call straight to my PBX. Come think of it, I would just need to setup an extension and use it as the SIP URI forwarder to the actual extension where it would ring on my end. I do host my PBX behind a cable modem and a registered DNS domain name for which I pay including dynamic DNS service. Hmmm.... |
|
tired_runner
1 edit |
to deskjockey
And just as I had suspected.... I can have IPkall forward the call straight to my PBX. I just set it up to forward via SIP URI to one of my extension here, and it rings. Awesome  Buh bye CallCentric.... For now... LOL Now I need to figure out how to make it ring to a ring group. Ideally, I'd like inbound calls from one of my DIDs to ring at home and on the cell, just like I had it before. If you ring straight to an extension and not a DID, it will only ring that extension. |
|
Iscream
Premium Member
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY |
Iscream
Premium Member
2014-Jan-4 3:12 pm
I tried to stay "aside" while this thread was evolving, but it seems like [because the thread is now at its logical end] I cannot just stay "cool" while this matter is being keyed and stored by all search engines (Google's primarily).
Honestly - this thread leaves a bad taste for absolutely no reason:
- how was it relevant to Callcentric in first place?
- where is anywhere there even a slightest failure of Callcentric to deliver?
- why would there be a totally baseless assertion that Callcentric Free DIDs are anyhow less reliable than those of IPKall's? Seriously?
Callcentric is a SMALL company which is trying very hard to provide the outstanding quality of service while competing in a very though business field.
To opinions of many people - it does deliver and excels its competition and many/most areas like feature sets, voice/quality quality, reliability, dependability and support.
It also provides lots of free services - some of them because the costs are covered from other products while some others - because the profit is derived from incoming calls while charging peering CLECs for delivering those calls (NY Free DIDs) - this is the same model employed by IPKall, the only difference is that Callcentric DOES provide a free support for all its services.
Really - why do I get a cold feeling like this thread really hurts Callcentric business? Is it me only?
Thanks. |
|
 swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL
1 edit |
Interesting post. CC free DIDs are indeed experiencing really bad problems with regarding to forwarding to from GV. See CC FAQ here: » www.callcentric.com/faq/6#379Or more details here: » productforums.google.com ··· C_n8pYUMI personally like CallCentric, but this thread has been spot on about trying to workaround the issues associated with TELENGY's free DIDs. I don't think anyone is trying to trash CC, but the bottom line right now is that their free DIDs are completely broken for me when using GV. As a result, I use IPKall as the workaround and have experienced zero problems since. I sense no bad taste. Perhaps you just haven't experienced any problems discussed in this thread enough to understand its purpose. Cheers, |
|
| |
to Iscream
said by Iscream:....Callcentric is a SMALL company which is trying very hard to provide the outstanding quality of service while competing in a very tough business field.
To opinions of many people - it does deliver and excels its competition and many/most areas like feature sets, voice/quality quality, reliability, dependability and support.
It also provides lots of free services - some of them because the costs are covered from other products while some others - because the profit is derived from incoming calls while charging peering CLECs for delivering those calls (NY Free DIDs) - this is the same model employed by IPKall, the only difference is that Callcentric DOES provide a free support for all its services.... 1+ I think that CallCentric continues to have an excellent reputation, deservedly so. If people didn't feel that way, they wouldn't rely on it so much, discuss it so much, or include it in so much of their planning. |
|
| PX Eliezer1 |
to swanboy
There are no problems forwarding [to] GV. As to forwarding [from] GV, that's a Google problem, not a CallCentric problem, as I think is pretty well established. Why should [GV] give a damn? Like Jay Leno, they are at an end. Dropping XMPP, and not having a renewal announcement for 2014, it's pretty clear. GoogleVoice is getting out of the bed, and won't be staying for breakfast. Did you actually read what you linked to? Yes, there have been issues from GoogleVoice, but not necessarily affecting free CC numbers to any greater extent than paid CC numbers.... ....and seemingly due to the termination carriers that GV sometimes uses, not to any CLEC's that CC uses. ----- Nothing wrong with using IPKall as a delicious part of a complete breakfast. But it's funny that so many people using an IPKall DID still end up directing it to a free CallCentric account anyway. |
|
·Frontier Communi..
|
to Iscream
said by Iscream:I tried to stay "aside" while this thread was evolving, but it seems like [because the thread is now at its logical end] I cannot just stay "cool" while this matter is being keyed and stored by all search engines (Google's primarily).
Honestly - this thread leaves a bad taste for absolutely no reason:
- how was it relevant to Callcentric in first place?
- where is anywhere there even a slightest failure of Callcentric to deliver?
- why would there be a totally baseless assertion that Callcentric Free DIDs are anyhow less reliable than those of IPKall's? Seriously?
Callcentric is a SMALL company which is trying very hard to provide the outstanding quality of service while competing in a very though business field.
To opinions of many people - it does deliver and excels its competition and many/most areas like feature sets, voice/quality quality, reliability, dependability and support.
It also provides lots of free services - some of them because the costs are covered from other products while some others - because the profit is derived from incoming calls while charging peering CLECs for delivering those calls (NY Free DIDs) - this is the same model employed by IPKall, the only difference is that Callcentric DOES provide a free support for all its services.
Really - why do I get a cold feeling like this thread really hurts Callcentric business? Is it me only?
Thanks. For what it's worth to you, I did recently migrate my parents to Callcentric services; both paid NOT free DID, and 1000 outbound minutes; based primarily on what I've read about the company in this forum, and the fact that the staff seems technically competent in handling a number port and with all my questions regarding Asterisk and getting it to work with my PBX. To the aforementioned extent, I can personally vouch for Callcentric being a top notch company in my eyes. My parents have different needs than mine; I don't need 911 nor do I need to park my DID elsewhere from Google Voice at the present time since Google still supports forwarding calls elsewhere. Having that in mind, I wanted to consider Callcentric's free inbound DID to see how it could handle my particular wants. And to my dismay, there appears to be issues that so far I can only reproduce using a Callcentric free DID, and not IPKall. I would love it if the issue could sort itself out. Eventually I have to purchase an outbound plan and seeing that Callcentric was relatively painless to get it working, it only makes sense to stick to what I know works. Presently; whether it's Callcentric's fault or not; inbound forwarding from GV to a Callcentric free DID works intermittently at best. If that changes between now and May of this year, I would be happy to report that as well. |
|
Iscream
Premium Member
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY |
Iscream
Premium Member
2014-Jan-4 4:35 pm
Thank you NetworkGuy for clarifying this matter.
Forwarding from GV to Callcentric DIDs is totally different issue and should be interpreted as such. It's not relevant to the _reliability_ of Callcentric NY Free DIDs.
It's (the issue) is RELEVANT only to Google Voice using CHEAP, GRAY and/or otherwise NOT lawfully implemented termination service "provided" by some 3rd party NOT a telecom provider.
You or any one else may make 1000s calls by using ANY common telecom carrier to Callcentric Free NY DIDs - to witness that NO single call would be missed or dropped or not accompanied by a properly delivered Caller-ID.
The sole fact of NOT delivering a correct caller-ID (even for those calls which are reaching Callcentric network) or "delivering" a wrong/misformatted Caller-ID is already speaking for itself - the "carrier" in charge to terminate those calls from GV - is a GRAY illegal provider who's obviously violating FCC regulations about non-spoofing caller-ID.
Said Caller-ID spoofing is made with only one purpose - to hide an origin of the call to avoid taxation and/or payments to USF.
There were several threads related to this matter on this forum as well as an official message on callcentric WEB site telling that Callcentric is NOT responsible nor is able to fix this issue which results from lack of care or negligence on Google Voice and (some other 3rd party) providers.
When a call is delivered - it's being sent to related customer with accompanied details (Caller-ID), but when there is NO call - how can Callcentric make it appear?
Believe me - if there would be ANYTHING just ANYTHING in Callcentric control to get this issue resolved - it would have been resolved already long time ago. Callcentric just receives (or rather - NOT receives) calls in this case.
I'd be able to understand if/when some small VoIP provider who's attempting to save a penny here and there on avoiding proper Caller-ID delivery (and related fees and taxes) by not using appropriate carriers, but i CANNOT understand Google Voice (who had been made aware [multiple times] of this issue via their own channels/forums) deliberately using non-qualified people "opinions" to relay or misrepresent this issue on those who are not even closely relevant to it nor being able to resolve it. |
|
graysonf
MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL |
to PX Eliezer1
A free CC account via SIP is not the same thing as a free DID. |
|
1 edit |
said by graysonf:A free CC account via SIP is not the same thing as a free DID. Right. But there are [lots] of [other] places to get free SIP URI accounts, such as Junction Networks' GetOnSip, Sip2Sip.info, Ekiga.net, and others. Yet people [keep coming back] to CallCentric for free SIP URI usage. If the Klingons landed tomorrow in the Sahara, the world would not look to the Chinese for help, nor the Russians, nor the British or the Venezuelans. They'd scream for the Americans and you damn well know that. Same principle here. If people didn't care about CC, they wouldn't keep talking about it so much. ----- As for Google Voice, they clearly want to refocus their service. Shutting down XMPP is part of that. Aside from that, if you were running GV and if you wanted to offload some types of users in preparation for refocusing, might you not think of some process of discouraging usage, or at least not be concerned with fixing problems? |
|
·
