From hockd at dteenergy.com  Thu Nov  1 03:23:47 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 05:23:47 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
In-Reply-To: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865DE@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
References: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865DE@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
Message-ID: <OF33543913.7D6A247C-ON85257386.00339DC8-85257386.00339DCB@dteenergy.com>

Owww  Thats gonna leave a mark permanently huh!  ;-)

Dennis Hock

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 10/31/2007 09:22PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET

I'm thinking "dueling pistols..."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
> On Behalf Of Arthur Bloom
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>
> Who would give permission to allow the use of, say, 1000
> numbers, or 100 or even 1 number?  The person who originally
> hoarded...excuse me..."reserved"
> the code?  Or the Chief Enum Coordination Officer?  It seems
> like a conflict might lead to bad feelings.  I agree with the
> others who say that area codes are the best long-range plan.
>

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From lee at spenadel.com  Thu Nov  1 05:33:04 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:33:04 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
In-Reply-To: <000701c81c47$155cacf0$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>
References: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865E0@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
	<000701c81c47$155cacf0$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>
Message-ID: <00d701c81c7a$f7fd7570$e7f86050$@com>

Why not map 411 through to Goog411?  I have my switch configured for that
service and would be happy to host it for the group.  I would merely forward
it out my own 411 configuration.

-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
Jayson Smith
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:22 AM
To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET

I already have one thought, which echoes one of Greg's. The X11 codes should

not be assignable as office codes at all. E.G. the number 411-1111 should 
not be valid. However, there should be the ability for someone to provide a 
service on a particular X11 code, E.G. 411 directory assistance service. 
Even this should not be possible for 911, which is a very important 
real-world service when it's needed. If anything at all is put on the 911 
code, it should be a 911 failure announcement, which, in my opinion, should 
indicate the following things:
The phone line is not properly configured to provide 911 service.
If this is an emergency, the caller should dial 911 from a different 
telephone line. I know that's not very helpful, but a generic message can't 
get much more specific.
If the caller is conducting a test of their implementation of 911 service, 
the test has failed, and they should fix it.
This message would be useful for times when someone dials 911 on a system 
which has been mistakenly configured to route 911 as a CNET call.
Jayson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>; "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog 
Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET


>I apologize, guys.  I can see that everyone is fairly concerned about
> putting their time and energies into a hobby that could fall apart
> disastrously if a war over unsettled issues erupts.
>
> Something you should bear in mind: a new network could be started in
> competition with this one, so your efforts at making asterisk boxes and
> embedded asterisk firewalls would not ultimately go to waste.  You could
> always take your marbles and go join a different game.
>
> All that said, I hope that we don't get to that point.  I kinda like all
> the back and forth we have on the list, and I would miss it if the noise
> level got too low.
>
> I am going to talk with Ian Jolly off-list, and see what it is that they
> have put in place that keeps the UK switchers from warring over their
> office codes.  I'm sure that the legacy phone network in Britain evolved
> over time, so it can't be as cut and dried as it seems.
>
> Once I hear from him, I would like to get volunteers to be part of a
> standards committee.  We could all bring our best ideas, discuss the
> issues, along with possible solutions, and then present what we come up
> with to everyone on this list for all of us to vote on.
>
> That's the only way I can think of that we can resolve some things
> without burning up too much time on this mailing list, rehashing the
> same things over and over.
>
> Once we have voted, any policies that we adopt will be added to the
> ckts.info website.
>
> So, if you have a desire to be a part of the standards committee, please
> drop me an email off-list, and we'll get this critter going in a
> business-like, yet friendly, fashion.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
>> On Behalf Of John Novack
>>
>>
>> The UK guys are ahead of us in their policy and planning so I
>> don't consider a discussion out of line.
>>
>> By having a few policies in place we certainly don't destroy
>> the informal nature of it all.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> 
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


From voiptandem at shaneyoung.com  Thu Nov  1 05:47:42 2007
From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com (Shane Young)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:47:42 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
In-Reply-To: <00d701c81c7a$f7fd7570$e7f86050$@com>
References: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865E0@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
	<000701c81c47$155cacf0$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>
	<00d701c81c7a$f7fd7570$e7f86050$@com>
Message-ID: <20071101064742.u381auxxpss4o0gg@secure.shaneyoung.com>

The technically correct way to do that would be for each switch to  
route 411 (or any n11 call) locally.

I think we are getting a little off track.  The purpose of the ENUM  
service that Greg has is to route calls between switches, not out to  
the network in general.

You'd really want to do that type of stuff locally in your Asterisk dial plan.


Quoting Lee Spenadel <lee at spenadel.com>:

> Why not map 411 through to Goog411?  I have my switch configured for that
> service and would be happy to host it for the group.  I would merely forward
> it out my own 411 configuration.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
> Jayson Smith
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:22 AM
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
>
> I already have one thought, which echoes one of Greg's. The X11 codes should
>
> not be assignable as office codes at all. E.G. the number 411-1111 should
> not be valid. However, there should be the ability for someone to provide a
> service on a particular X11 code, E.G. 411 directory assistance service.
> Even this should not be possible for 911, which is a very important
> real-world service when it's needed. If anything at all is put on the 911
> code, it should be a 911 failure announcement, which, in my opinion, should
> indicate the following things:
> The phone line is not properly configured to provide 911 service.
> If this is an emergency, the caller should dial 911 from a different
> telephone line. I know that's not very helpful, but a generic message can't
> get much more specific.
> If the caller is conducting a test of their implementation of 911 service,
> the test has failed, and they should fix it.
> This message would be useful for times when someone dials 911 on a system
> which has been mistakenly configured to route 911 as a CNET call.
> Jayson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
> To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>; "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
> Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
>
>
>> I apologize, guys.  I can see that everyone is fairly concerned about
>> putting their time and energies into a hobby that could fall apart
>> disastrously if a war over unsettled issues erupts.
>>
>> Something you should bear in mind: a new network could be started in
>> competition with this one, so your efforts at making asterisk boxes and
>> embedded asterisk firewalls would not ultimately go to waste.  You could
>> always take your marbles and go join a different game.
>>
>> All that said, I hope that we don't get to that point.  I kinda like all
>> the back and forth we have on the list, and I would miss it if the noise
>> level got too low.
>>
>> I am going to talk with Ian Jolly off-list, and see what it is that they
>> have put in place that keeps the UK switchers from warring over their
>> office codes.  I'm sure that the legacy phone network in Britain evolved
>> over time, so it can't be as cut and dried as it seems.
>>
>> Once I hear from him, I would like to get volunteers to be part of a
>> standards committee.  We could all bring our best ideas, discuss the
>> issues, along with possible solutions, and then present what we come up
>> with to everyone on this list for all of us to vote on.
>>
>> That's the only way I can think of that we can resolve some things
>> without burning up too much time on this mailing list, rehashing the
>> same things over and over.
>>
>> Once we have voted, any policies that we adopt will be added to the
>> ckts.info website.
>>
>> So, if you have a desire to be a part of the standards committee, please
>> drop me an email off-list, and we'll get this critter going in a
>> business-like, yet friendly, fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
>>> On Behalf Of John Novack
>>>
>>>
>>> The UK guys are ahead of us in their policy and planning so I
>>> don't consider a discussion out of line.
>>>
>>> By having a few policies in place we certainly don't destroy
>>> the informal nature of it all.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>

--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------


From ian at uax.org.uk  Thu Nov  1 06:50:09 2007
From: ian at uax.org.uk (Ian Jolly)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:50:09 -0000
Subject: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
References: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865E0@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
Message-ID: <00a301c81c85$bc6c4760$0c01a8c0@acer1dd0bbc6d0>

I've replied to Greg at length but just to put you in the picture briefly.

In the UK/Ireland (and New Zealand) we decided to adopt the old dialling 
codes that use to be used prior to public switches being grouped together 
with a single 'area' (STD) code and a long number. Nowadays, all calls 
within an "area code" are routed between switches without a code.  In the 
old days we would have dialled a local code between these switches and 
callers into the "area" would have dialled the area code plus the local code 
to reach the smaller switches or just the area code for the main 'parent' 
switch in the area.

In 1995 to increase the number of available codes in the UK, the digit '1' 
was inserted after the initial access digit '0' to all geographic codes in 
the UK making them four digits long.

When CNET was first set up, the 'office' code was limited to three digits - 
our "area code"  in the UK.  This fitted in nicely with the old 'heritage' 
STD codes which it was decided we would adopt particularly as a number of us 
have original former public switches preserved - hence we would use the 
original code for that switch. Others wanted to use their own local code (as 
it was originally) and others a code with which they had a connection.

We had a case at the end of last year where a person reserved several UK 
three digit codes which covered most of the west of Wales. That person 
whilst having a number of EM PABXs has never to our knowledge got anything 
up and working in the last 15 years.  Some of the area codes that he 
reserved he had neither the original public switches nor were they in an 
area he lived in. We had a collector with an Asterisk up and running, a 
former public EM switch working plus an EM crossbar switch, all ready to 
connect but couldn't have his own local codes!

An ad hoc committee of the then four working Asterisk owners was left by 
other UK members to try to find a solution.  Part of the solution was to 
allow the reservation of codes up to five digits long (the longest ever used 
by the old British Post Office system).  We then also suggested that a 
'code' could be reserved "unreservedly" for two months but could be 
reallocated after that if some-one was ready to connect. The original 
'reserver' of the required code withdrew his reservation.

Due to the system of  old UK codes consisting of an "area" code for the 
'main parent' switch/exchange and the "area" code plus the local code for 
the smaller switches we have a situation such as this -
Code    Exchange Name    Asterisk Owner
244         Chester               Ian Jolly
244 52    Spon Green         Ian Jolly
244 54    Buckley              Peter Duffield
244 55    Nant Mawr         Peter Duffield
244 56    Kinnerton            Peter Duffield
244 57    Penyffordd          David Harper
244 59    Rossett               David Harper

Thus some of us are even 'sharing' the same three digit code. In the UK we 
tended to refer  to exchanges/switches by a name rather than their code. 
Some of the codes/exchange names are real.  Others are made up using a 
locality name that the Asterisk owner wants to use.  Which are real in the 
above list ?  :-)

All the above people are within three miles of each other!  And yet we've 
sorted out the code problem. We could even add more such as 244 58, 244 6X 
and so on. The codes/exchange names could be real or made up.  Not only do 
we have the above codes set up via the ENUM, we can dial the old original 
local codes from one exchange to another (these route between Asterisks 
without going via the ENUM).  So far we have about 60 "exchanges/switches" 
set up between the three Asterisk boxes in North Wales.   It looks as though 
most of the North of Wales still exists.  It is very hard to work out from 
our  little "network" which are the real switches and which are the 
'mythical' ones ! :-)  You can dial from one switch to another to another 
and so one - just as phonephreakers did many years ago!  24 "switches" in a 
row with something like a 36 digit code is the longest so far before we 
connected :-)

Back to things more serious.   don't think we want to tie things down too 
tightly. "Why mend it if it isn't broke" ?.  On the other hand try to 
foresee any problems. The fact that we have so many codes available in the 
UK now that we can go up to five digits has eased the problem.  And the fact 
that most of know each other in one way or another helps.

We have had one odd problem. One UK three digit code has been reserved and 
activated by a person unknown to anyone else in the UK. I've tracked the 
person down and emailled them with an email address used by them recently 
but no response. No-one-else has seen calls from them going through their 
Asterisks.  What do we do with a situation like that?   Also the /411, and 
/192 directory pages have some list of numbers which haven't worked for a 
long while.  Should we ensure that Asterisk owners only enter numbers that 
are working?   Note I use the term Asterisk owner and not 'code owner'  - a 
point brought up by others.

Some of you may not be aware of my recent appointment as Assistant Deputy 
Chief Enum Coordination Officer (Rest of the World)  - thanks Arthur !

I now help Greg out by looking after the non North American CNET 
applications for membership and code activations.  Any applications come to 
both of us so we can back each other up in case of illness etc.

Ian jolly






+44 (0)  352      82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from 
CNET - the Heritage Telephone Network
+44 (0)1352 83 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from  Public 
Telephone Network
FWD Telephone No  83 2230

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>; "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog 
Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET


>I apologize, guys.  I can see that everyone is fairly concerned about
> putting their time and energies into a hobby that could fall apart
> disastrously if a war over unsettled issues erupts.
>
> Something you should bear in mind: a new network could be started in
> competition with this one, so your efforts at making asterisk boxes and
> embedded asterisk firewalls would not ultimately go to waste.  You could
> always take your marbles and go join a different game.
>
> All that said, I hope that we don't get to that point.  I kinda like all
> the back and forth we have on the list, and I would miss it if the noise
> level got too low.
>
> I am going to talk with Ian Jolly off-list, and see what it is that they
> have put in place that keeps the UK switchers from warring over their
> office codes.  I'm sure that the legacy phone network in Britain evolved
> over time, so it can't be as cut and dried as it seems.
>
> Once I hear from him, I would like to get volunteers to be part of a
> standards committee.  We could all bring our best ideas, discuss the
> issues, along with possible solutions, and then present what we come up
> with to everyone on this list for all of us to vote on.
>
> That's the only way I can think of that we can resolve some things
> without burning up too much time on this mailing list, rehashing the
> same things over and over.
>
> Once we have voted, any policies that we adopt will be added to the
> ckts.info website.
>
> So, if you have a desire to be a part of the standards committee, please
> drop me an email off-list, and we'll get this critter going in a
> business-like, yet friendly, fashion.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
>> On Behalf Of John Novack
>>
>>
>> The UK guys are ahead of us in their policy and planning so I
>> don't consider a discussion out of line.
>>
>> By having a few policies in place we certainly don't destroy
>> the informal nature of it all.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 
> 30/10/2007 18:26
>
> 


From g4vft at btinternet.com  Thu Nov  1 06:53:35 2007
From: g4vft at btinternet.com (Jonathan Kay)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:53:35 +0000
Subject: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
In-Reply-To: <47292C89.3050303@stromberg-carlson.org>
References: <001701c81c0d$46b18210$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865BF@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>	<47236036.60505@josephson.com>	<47235FF9.50409@jps.net>	<20071027110732.chbb6en0sg4888oo@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<472363C3.9000002@jps.net>	<006401c81c02$f2dc5f20$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<0ba901c81c0d$d5987470$650fa8c0@orgsi1sy1s92it>	<001701c81c0d$46b18210$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<5.1.0.14.2.20071031193529.02a90368@incoming.verizon.net>	<002a01c81c1c$ff69b980$0201a8c0@Main>
	<47292C89.3050303@stromberg-carlson.org>
Message-ID: <4729CC4F.3060101@btinternet.com>

Your office code issue isn't really any of my business.
So I've been tussling with the decision to stick my head above the 
parapet, or not, on this thread ;)
Anyway, just a couple of comments to add to your mix.

In the UK, a problem did arise, where one person decided to reserve 3 or 
4 codes on the wiki page. And when asked politely to share those codes 
out, steadfastly refused. He doesn't to this day have a working asterisk 
box afaik.

So, we made the decision to only allocate the code plus access digits 
for each switch. So for example, I don't have all of 44-730, only 
730-81xxx and 730-4xxx Anything else on 730 is free for others, if they 
want it.
The UK codes, are probably more like your Area codes, (with access 
digits rather than 3 digit office codes), leading to different offices 
served by that "Tandem" centre. There won't be any duplication, as is 
possible with US Office codes.
So, breaking out the ENUM lookup, and not allowing one person to sit on 
a single code was really all we needed to do.

We basically, also said that Ian has the information and knowledge to 
find and allocate codes according to documented history. He has the 
final say in event of a dispute. Which is a lot less likely now, anyway.

It seems you need to decide, whether to be happy splitting up an office 
code and sharing that 10000 line groups between  two or more members. Or 
else going with area codes, and keeping an office code unique to a 
single switch.
I gather 10/11 digit dialling is a bone of contention?
If this is the case, perhaps you could "zone" yourselves into  local 
call groups.
Rather than using lots of area codes, perhaps just use a handful.
Arrange your area codes by some means, so that, people are grouped by 
geography, or switch type or any criteria you fancy, then write your 
dial plan to dial the local area code for you, meaning you only dial 7 
digits for regular calls.

Good luck ! Best Regards.

Jon Kay








From hockd at dteenergy.com  Thu Nov  1 08:35:50 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:35:50 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
In-Reply-To: <47292AF0.8020309@stromberg-carlson.org>
References: <001701c81c0d$46b18210$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865BF@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
	<47236036.60505@josephson.com>	<47235FF9.50409@jps.net>	<20071027110732.chbb6en0sg4888oo@secure.shaneyoung.com>
	<472363C3.9000002@jps.net>	<006401c81c02$f2dc5f20$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<0ba901c81c0d$d5987470$650fa8c0@orgsi1sy1s92it>
	<001701c81c0d$46b18210$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>	<5.1.0.14.2.20071031193529.02a90368@incoming.verizon.net>,
	<47292AF0.8020309@stromberg-carlson.org>
Message-ID: <OF55FC4E2A.DBE03C7F-ON85257386.00502F8D-85257386.00502F94@dteenergy.com>


I also have been reading this with interest and would agreee with Doug.  I
further think we do need these discussions and need to do some long range
planning for the eventuality.  Based on that we need to decide as Ian or
Jon put it what do we think will be the least of the two evils, that is
splitting office codes or implementing area codes.

I think interms of the n11 they can be implemented if a person is of a mind
to provide that service for the network.  Barring that each person can
implement what ever n11 codes they feel and / or want.  I think we should
give some consideration to a 911 entry in the event that some one visiting
our abode has a problem and attempts to use what ever instrument they are
nearest too.  Likely they won't know which ones support what, heck the
family probably won't know in many cases.

I am sorry I didn't get a chance to send you (Greg) Ians' information which
he so kindly provided to me and I brought to the Cinci show.  John N. and I
had a brief discussion at the show but didn't get too far.  I hope and
believe that Ian would have no problem with me sending it too yourself
(Greg).

I think ultimately we will need to put into play NPAs but until then as
long as we are able to share the office codes this should be a ways out.

I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
one collects is and can be different for all of us.  I don't think if a
person has a Strowger or a late model say Partner or as John N has the
Toshiba Perception in place and online.  My Step is unfortunately still
spread around the basement with only some of it remounted and getting ready
to be rewired.

I would hate to see this fine group, and I mean that with all sincerity,
brek up or fragment after we have come so far.  Muchg farther I think than
any of us could have envisioned early on!

Just my thoughts.

Resapectfully submitted,

Dennis Hock

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 10/31/2007 09:25PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET

I answered before reading Doug's response, so I second his opinions, as
I did before reading.

John Novack


Doug Alderdice wrote:
> Sounds good for the most part, Shane, however it has been my
understanding
> that having an EM switch was *not* a prerequisite to being on the CNET
and
> having an office code (or two).  The original intent of CNET was to trunk
> old switches together, but it has been extended to others like Jayson who
> have a genuine interest in the old switches but don't actually have
> one.  (I hope Jayson doesn't think we are picking on him as there are
> others on CNET who are in the same situation, no switch but have genuine
> interest in old switching.)  As I recall (to further use Jayson as an
> example), Jayson asked publicly on this list if he could put up a
> switch-less Asterisk on CNET and there was a resounding "of course" from
> the group.
>
> The picture idea is good for those who are intending to put an EM switch
on
> CNET, and may be a good way of having a place holder on an office code
> while a switch is under construction, but I think the idea of actually
> getting an Asterisk box online within a certain time frame is a better
way
> of handling the office code issuance.  After all, there would be a "box"
to
> accept calls to the office code in question and proves to some degree the
> owner's seriousness of joining CNET.
>
> JMO.
>
> Doug.
>
>
> At 06:29 PM 10/31/2007 -0500, Shane Young wrote:
>
>> Ok, I've got an idea.  Feel free to smack me if you think it's retarded.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree on a timeframe (1 month, 6 months, whatever).  Call this the
>> "reservation period" or some such term.
>>
>> Once you "reserve" an office code, you have that period of time to
>> post a picture of the switch you intend to connect.  This needs to be
>> a picture of your switch, not a stock photo of  #5XB board from the
>> Western Electric 1972 Christmas catalog ;)
>>
>>
>> This acomplishes two things.  It shows that you are serious about
>> connecting your equipment to CNET *and* we all get to "ooooh" and
>> "ahhhh" over your switch.
>>
>> Once you have posted a picture, you get to extend your reservation by
>> one more "reservation period" before the switch needs to be connected.
>>
>> If the switch isn't connected by that time, the reservation is marked
>> "available for re-assignment" but is still reserved with the original
>> person's name.
>>
>> If somone else comes along and wants that office code, it could be
>> reserved by that new person, following the same guidelines.
>>
>> Otherwise it just sits there as reserved but available.
>>
>>
>> We'd need to come up with some addtional guidelines for thoes who have
>> no intention of getting a switch but are active participants in CNET
>> and have something to offer by having an office code assigned to them.
>>
>> Jayson is a good example here, might not ever get a switch, but has a
>> bunch of stuff on his asterisk box to share *and* is seriously
>> interested in understanding how all of this stuff works.  He should
>> probably get to keep his office code or at least whatever portions he
>> thinks he'll use.
>>
>> There will probably be other exceptions as well, but I think most
>> grown adults could agree on those.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>> --Shane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Jayson Smith <ratguy at insightbb.com>:
>>
>>
>>> The original owner of the office code, in my opinion, would grant
>>>
>> permission
>>
>>> to the person desiring certain numbers from that code to use those
numbers.
>>> Then, either the owner, or the new user of those certain numbers would
>>> contact Greg to get the Enum records changed.
>>> Jayson
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Arthur Bloom" <m35prod at optonline.net>
>>> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Who would give permission to allow the use of, say, 1000 numbers, or
100
>>>> or
>>>> even 1 number?  The person who originally hoarded...excuse
me..."reserved"
>>>> the code?  Or the Chief Enum Coordination Officer?  It seems like a
>>>> conflict
>>>> might lead to bad feelings.  I agree with the others who say that area
>>>> codes
>>>> are the best long-range plan.
>>>>
>>>> APB, Pres.
>>>>
>>>> SHelterisland Telefon, Telegraf & Telewombat Company (SHiTTTCo)
>>>>
>>>> Providing service for nearly a hundredth of a century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    1-749-0100  CN
>>>> 631-749-0100  VZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at insightbb.com>
>>>> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> | I'm probably hopelessly late on my reply, but by default, the entire
>>>> office
>>>> | code is assigned to one person, and that person has all 10000 lines
to
>>>> play
>>>> | with. However, one or more lines can have their Enum records changed
to
>>>> | point at someone else.
>>>> | Jayson
>>>> |
>>>> | ----- Original Message -----
>>>> | From: "Steph Kerman" <stfkerman at jps.net>
>>>> | To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>>> | Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:13 PM
>>>> | Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> | > How does this fit in with David's comment?
>>>> | >
>>>> | > If the full 7-digit number is looked up in ENUM for each call to
allow
>>>> | > sharing of office codes doesn't that require ENUM to be updated
for
>>>> all
>>>> | > new line assignments at local switches?  I thought only the
3-digit
>>>> | > office code was being looked up and that there was discussion
about
>>>> | > extending this to the thousands digit to allow sharing of office
codes
>>>> | > in blocks of 1000 numbers, but that it had not been done.
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Steph
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Shane Young wrote:
>>>> | >> There is no need to do either.
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> Since we always lookup every number in DNS via ENUM, greg just
points
>>>> | >> the "ported" number to the new destination.
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> It's a lot like the way real LNP works.
>>>> | >> --Shane
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>> Send by redirecting at the originating point or send by
tandeming
>>>> | >>> through your system?
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>> Steph
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>> David Josephson wrote:
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>>> I think that anyone who has an office code should be able to
>>>> provide
>>>> | >>>> routing to other CNET numbers, should anyone else have a desire
for
>>>> a
>>>> | >>>> code in that prefix. I am in the process of constructing a 411
>>>> service
>>>> | >>>> to live at 555-1212, and I do have 555-2368 ringing on my desk.
But
>>>> if
>>>> | >>>> someone wanted another 555 number I'd be happy to write a line
in
>>>> the
>>>> | >>>> dialplan to send calls somewhere else.
>>>> | >>>>
>>>> | >>>> --
>>>> | >>>> David Josephson
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>

--
Dog is my co-pilot

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From voiptandem at shaneyoung.com  Thu Nov  1 09:43:27 2007
From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com (Shane Young)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:43:27 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
Message-ID: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>

I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:

Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:

> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
> one collects is and can be different for all of us.

I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."

There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.

Space needed for a switch
Cash to buy a switch
Power needed for a switch
Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
etc.

These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide  
connectivity for their phone displays.

I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,  
even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but  
none of them are connected to anything.

Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to  
Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll  
be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make  
calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.

I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel  
banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch  
of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've  
talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good  
FXS gateway for a display.

I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to  
participate in any way they can.



--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------


From hockd at dteenergy.com  Thu Nov  1 09:46:33 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:46:33 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <OFD981B258.ABD5F23B-ON85257386.0056A8F1-85257386.0056A8F5@dteenergy.com>

Thank you Shane I didn't reread what the devil I was writing.  YES, by all
means what I meant to say was that whatever someone chooses to hang off
their Asterisk box should NOT be a problem.  Certainly it is not for me.

I aplologize for any muddying up of the water.

Thanks for the quick catch Shane,

Dennis

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: Shane Young <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/01/2007 11:43AM
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers

I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:

Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:

> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but
what
> one collects is and can be different for all of us.

I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."

There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.

Space needed for a switch
Cash to buy a switch
Power needed for a switch
Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
etc.

These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
connectivity for their phone displays.

I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
none of them are connected to anything.

Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.

I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
FXS gateway for a display.

I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
participate in any way they can.



--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From stfkerman at jps.net  Thu Nov  1 09:48:25 2007
From: stfkerman at jps.net (Steph Kerman)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:48:25 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <4729F549.2020902@jps.net>

I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double 
negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.

Steph

Shane Young wrote:
> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>
> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>
>   
>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>     
>
> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>
> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.
>
> Space needed for a switch
> Cash to buy a switch
> Power needed for a switch
> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
> etc.
>
> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide  
> connectivity for their phone displays.
>
> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,  
> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but  
> none of them are connected to anything.
>
> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to  
> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll  
> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make  
> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>
> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel  
> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch  
> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've  
> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good  
> FXS gateway for a display.
>
> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to  
> participate in any way they can.
>
>
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

From voiptandem at shaneyoung.com  Thu Nov  1 10:16:53 2007
From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com (Shane Young)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:16:53 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <4729F549.2020902@jps.net>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
	<4729F549.2020902@jps.net>
Message-ID: <20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>

I should stop reading stuff while I'm at work :)



Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:

> I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double
> negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.
>
> Steph
>
> Shane Young wrote:
>> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>>
>> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>>
>>
>>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
>>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
>>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>>
>>
>> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>>
>> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.
>>
>> Space needed for a switch
>> Cash to buy a switch
>> Power needed for a switch
>> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
>> etc.
>>
>> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
>> connectivity for their phone displays.
>>
>> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
>> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
>> none of them are connected to anything.
>>
>> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
>> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
>> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
>> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>>
>> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
>> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
>> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
>> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
>> FXS gateway for a display.
>>
>> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
>> participate in any way they can.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Shane
>> +1-821-7311 CNET
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>

--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------


From stfkerman at jps.net  Thu Nov  1 10:20:08 2007
From: stfkerman at jps.net (Steph Kerman)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:20:08 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<4729F549.2020902@jps.net>
	<20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <4729FCB8.2080409@jps.net>

Yes, especially work related stuff.  ;-)

=SK=

Shane Young wrote:
> I should stop reading stuff while I'm at work :)
>
>
>
> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>
>   
>> I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double
>> negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.
>>
>> Steph
>>
>> Shane Young wrote:
>>     
>>> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>>>
>>> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
>>>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
>>>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>>>
>>> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.
>>>
>>> Space needed for a switch
>>> Cash to buy a switch
>>> Power needed for a switch
>>> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
>>> connectivity for their phone displays.
>>>
>>> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
>>> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
>>> none of them are connected to anything.
>>>
>>> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
>>> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
>>> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
>>> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>>>
>>> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
>>> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
>>> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
>>> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
>>> FXS gateway for a display.
>>>
>>> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
>>> participate in any way they can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Shane
>>> +1-821-7311 CNET
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoIP mailing list
>>> VoIP at ckts.info
>>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>     
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

From hockd at dteenergy.com  Thu Nov  1 10:33:52 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:33:52 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<4729F549.2020902@jps.net>,
	<20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <OFFBBD18D5.1CF238C5-ON85257386.005AFDAF-85257386.005AFDC6@dteenergy.com>

DUH  Same for me but this is the only meaningful communication I seem to
have anymore.

Dennis

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: voip at ckts.info
From: Shane Young <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/01/2007 12:16PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers

I should stop reading stuff while I'm at work :)



Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:

> I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double
> negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.
>
> Steph
>
> Shane Young wrote:
>> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>>
>> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>>
>>
>>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their
Asterisk
>>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but
what
>>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>>
>>
>> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>>
>> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not
switches.
>>
>> Space needed for a switch
>> Cash to buy a switch
>> Power needed for a switch
>> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
>> etc.
>>
>> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
>> connectivity for their phone displays.
>>
>> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
>> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
>> none of them are connected to anything.
>>
>> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
>> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
>> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
>> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>>
>> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
>> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
>> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
>> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
>> FXS gateway for a display.
>>
>> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
>> participate in any way they can.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Shane
>> +1-821-7311 CNET
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>

--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From stfkerman at jps.net  Thu Nov  1 10:37:38 2007
From: stfkerman at jps.net (Steph Kerman)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:37:38 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <OFFBBD18D5.1CF238C5-ON85257386.005AFDAF-85257386.005AFDC6@dteenergy.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<4729F549.2020902@jps.net>,
	<20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>
	<OFFBBD18D5.1CF238C5-ON85257386.005AFDAF-85257386.005AFDC6@dteenergy.com>
Message-ID: <472A00D2.7030300@jps.net>

Dennis, IMO you should not allow yourself to be distracted with all that 
D-E stuff.  ;-)

Steph

Dennis D Hock wrote:
> DUH  Same for me but this is the only meaningful communication I seem to
> have anymore.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>
>
> To: voip at ckts.info
> From: Shane Young <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
> Date: 11/01/2007 12:16PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
>
> I should stop reading stuff while I'm at work :)
>
>
>
> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>
>   
>> I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double
>> negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.
>>
>> Steph
>>
>> Shane Young wrote:
>>     
>>> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>>>
>>> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their
>>>>         
> Asterisk
>   
>>>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but
>>>>         
> what
>   
>>>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>>>
>>> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not
>>>       
> switches.
>   
>>> Space needed for a switch
>>> Cash to buy a switch
>>> Power needed for a switch
>>> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
>>> connectivity for their phone displays.
>>>
>>> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
>>> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
>>> none of them are connected to anything.
>>>
>>> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
>>> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
>>> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
>>> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>>>
>>> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
>>> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
>>> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
>>> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
>>> FXS gateway for a display.
>>>
>>> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
>>> participate in any way they can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Shane
>>> +1-821-7311 CNET
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoIP mailing list
>>> VoIP at ckts.info
>>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>     
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

From hockd at dteenergy.com  Thu Nov  1 11:33:53 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:33:53 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <472A00D2.7030300@jps.net>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<4729F549.2020902@jps.net>,
	<20071101111653.yfwade4a8ow8w4w0@secure.shaneyoung.com>	<OFFBBD18D5.1CF238C5-ON85257386.005AFDAF-85257386.005AFDC6@dteenergy.com>,
	<472A00D2.7030300@jps.net>
Message-ID: <OFBF4C589A.FE27ED4B-ON85257386.00607C8B-85257386.00607C8F@dteenergy.com>

Yopu know it.  It is getting worse and mor fragmented everyday here.

Dennis H.

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/01/2007 12:37PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers

Dennis, IMO you should not allow yourself to be distracted with all that
D-E stuff.  ;-)

Steph

Dennis D Hock wrote:
> DUH  Same for me but this is the only meaningful communication I seem to
> have anymore.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>
>
> To: voip at ckts.info
> From: Shane Young <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
> Date: 11/01/2007 12:16PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
>
> I should stop reading stuff while I'm at work :)
>
>
>
> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>
>
>> I think you missed the "don't".  As I read it, you've made it a double
>> negative: "don't think it shouldn't be a problem" makes it a problem.
>>
>> Steph
>>
>> Shane Young wrote:
>>
>>> I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>>>
>>> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their
>>>>
> Asterisk
>
>>>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but
>>>>
> what
>
>>>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>>>
>>> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not
>>>
> switches.
>
>>> Space needed for a switch
>>> Cash to buy a switch
>>> Power needed for a switch
>>> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
>>> connectivity for their phone displays.
>>>
>>> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
>>> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
>>> none of them are connected to anything.
>>>
>>> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
>>> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
>>> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
>>> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>>>
>>> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
>>> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
>>> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
>>> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
>>> FXS gateway for a display.
>>>
>>> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
>>> participate in any way they can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Shane
>>> +1-821-7311 CNET
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoIP mailing list
>>> VoIP at ckts.info
>>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From ikj1234i at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  1 11:36:32 2007
From: ikj1234i at yahoo.com (ikjtel)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <276354.734.qm@web51612.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


Well, perhaps this might devolve into the definition
of the word "switcher" ;-)

I have (sort of) cobbled together a frankenswitch of
sorts; it consists of a 10-level dial trunk selector
as well as a couple of SD-65718-01 Tie Trks (working
thanks to some help from Steph and John N.) and some
other misc. junque, including 48 ports on a Coastcom
channel bank (FXS, FXO, and 4W E&M).  Somewhere down
there is a KS-type busy tone and ring plant
(motorized) but not currently connected up.  Tieing it
all together is an asterisk box (courtesy of Rick
Walsh and John Novack) with an upgraded motherboard;
currently it's running Fedora 7 and asterisk 1.2.x
equipped with several of my patches including my
rotary dial speed/%brk tester application.  I also
have a bunch of 1A2 stuff that's starting to get
punched down but needs more work...

However, mounted in the 19" rack is an old Collins
R-390A (HF) receiver that is so sensitive that some
claim it goes down to the galactic noise floor.  If I
try to copy RTTY in the 14,090 KHz region it will be
completely swamped and blown away by broadband RF
noise and hash as soon as the PC (not to mention the
fluorescent lights) is powered up; no RTTY signals are
audible whatsoever.  On top of that is my general
overall paranoia about everything, in this case of
fire; leading to a rule that none of that stuff is to
be powered up unless I'm home & awake.  So, those are
my "excuses" for not being connected 24/7 to CNET.

In addition to being into vintage phones, switching,
RTTY, etc., I'm also interested in vintage computing. 
Running alongside asterisk in the server PC is a copy
of Hercules as well as a copy of a vintage IBM
mainframe computer Operating System from the 1960's
and 70's (OS/VS2 MVS/370) as well as its Time Sharing
Option (TSO).

TSO was perhaps the most widely used dial-up
time-sharing service offering in the 1960's and 70's. 
I have an old Teletype ASR-32 (used also for the RTTY
stuff) that hooks up nicely with TSO (both are
uppercase-only).  There is a crew of people who've
resurrected these beastly old IBM OS's and gotten them
running again (thankfully they're not copyrighted). 
Some of these folks seem to share a certain form of
dementia that I am familiar with (and perhaps one or
two - unnamed - folks from this VOIP list may as well
;-)  I suppose I should note that anyone who considers
himself a computing "guru" should try hacking on a
"real man's" OS such as IBM MVS - enough said ;-)

TSO was always able to communicate with "line mode"
(TTY) devices, but no one in the Hercules community
had figured out how to do so - until me.  I've created
some drivers and other code to enable TSO in Teletype
mode.  This is about as close as you can get to the
actual 1960's time-sharing experience; in fact, the
TSO version that is our legacy is definitely not
Y2K-compliant; when you logon you'll receive a message
such as:
IKJ56455I IBMUSER LOGON IN PROGRESS AT 14:15:06 ON
NOVEMBER 1, 1907

In case anyone is interested, there's further info at
the following URL's
http://www.lightlink.com/mhp/2703/
http://www.lightlink.com/mhp/3705/

Best,

Max

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From ian at uax.org.uk  Thu Nov  1 11:40:34 2007
From: ian at uax.org.uk (Ian Jolly)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 17:40:34 -0000
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c81cae$4ef5d4c0$0c01a8c0@acer1dd0bbc6d0>

Whilst chuckling at the double negative :-)    (In Welsh - our local 
language they use double negatives all the time as standard practice !)

I couldn't agree more with Shane.  The beauty of CNET is the variety of 
interest in those connected to it.  I have quite a few people on hosted off 
my Asterisk who only have an ATA and a single telephone (vintage or 
otherwise). Others have an ATA (or two) which are hooked up to a trunk port 
on a 'heritage' first generation electronic switch of some sort. I have a 
New Zealand Telecom 2+6 PABX small enough to sit under a bakelite telephone 
with a 'footprint' less than that of two phones sat side by side.( Ideal for 
converting the reverse NZ dial pulses in my case)

There are others who have been a great support through their knowledge of 
Asterisk but without an old switch.

It is the 'common bond' of the old telephony that drives us on ( I'm told 
that it is "treatable but not curable"so long as you keep taking the tablets 
:-)

Let us not make rules that are too 'tight'  but do everything to encourage 
others. In the UK I've produced a 'CNET' version of the old British Post 
Office's STD Dialling Code book of 1966 with the UK codes in the front part 
then the International codes, followed by a Directory of most UK numbers, 
and a selection of overseas numbers. The rear three pages show how to 
download the ZoIPer "softphone" and set it up to a "gateway" that we have 
set up that does not require any setting up other than in the "softphone". 
It is available on the CNET-UK-I group's website as a PDF to download and 
print your own copy off. At a coupe of recent meetings of Telephone 
Collectors I handed out maybe forty or fifty copies resulting in new members 
"signing up"  - one is already up and running with an ATA hosted off another 
Asterisk and is working on getting his own up and running soon. Others are 
on the way.

I've also discovered that these old telephones I've been hoarding for years 
can actually be used to speak to others with an interest in telecoms! 
And thanks to Asterisk we now are not only able to preserve old switches (of 
most varieties) but can recreate the network that linked them.

Long may we be making and receiving calls

Ian Jolly

p.s.  Are Peter Duffield and I the closest two Asterisk Tandems at just one 
mile apart as the crow flies ?

+44 (0)  352      82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from 
CNET - the Heritage Telephone Network
+44 (0)1352 83 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from  Public 
Telephone Network
FWD Telephone No  83 2230


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shane Young" <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers


>I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>
> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>
>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but 
>> what
>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>
> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>
> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not 
> switches.
>
> Space needed for a switch
> Cash to buy a switch
> Power needed for a switch
> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
> etc.
>
> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
> connectivity for their phone displays.
>
> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
> none of them are connected to anything.
>
> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>
> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
> FXS gateway for a display.
>
> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
> participate in any way they can.
>
>
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date: 
> 01/11/2007 06:01
> 


From m35prod at optonline.net  Thu Nov  1 13:04:44 2007
From: m35prod at optonline.net (Arthur Bloom)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:04:44 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
	<005c01c81cae$4ef5d4c0$0c01a8c0@acer1dd0bbc6d0>
Message-ID: <0dae01c81cba$109f4fb0$650fa8c0@orgsi1sy1s92it>

At just over a mile apart, I should think that you two fellows would run 
your own open-wire trunk connection along the fence posts, and do away with 
all this new-fangled Axe-Your-Wrist bumph.

APB

749-0100  CN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Jolly" <ian at uax.org.uk>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers


| Whilst chuckling at the double negative :-)    (In Welsh - our local
| language they use double negatives all the time as standard practice !)
|
| I couldn't agree more with Shane.  The beauty of CNET is the variety of
| interest in those connected to it.  I have quite a few people on hosted 
off
| my Asterisk who only have an ATA and a single telephone (vintage or
| otherwise). Others have an ATA (or two) which are hooked up to a trunk 
port
| on a 'heritage' first generation electronic switch of some sort. I have a
| New Zealand Telecom 2+6 PABX small enough to sit under a bakelite 
telephone
| with a 'footprint' less than that of two phones sat side by side.( Ideal 
for
| converting the reverse NZ dial pulses in my case)
|
| There are others who have been a great support through their knowledge of
| Asterisk but without an old switch.
|
| It is the 'common bond' of the old telephony that drives us on ( I'm told
| that it is "treatable but not curable"so long as you keep taking the 
tablets
| :-)
|
| Let us not make rules that are too 'tight'  but do everything to encourage
| others. In the UK I've produced a 'CNET' version of the old British Post
| Office's STD Dialling Code book of 1966 with the UK codes in the front 
part
| then the International codes, followed by a Directory of most UK numbers,
| and a selection of overseas numbers. The rear three pages show how to
| download the ZoIPer "softphone" and set it up to a "gateway" that we have
| set up that does not require any setting up other than in the "softphone".
| It is available on the CNET-UK-I group's website as a PDF to download and
| print your own copy off. At a coupe of recent meetings of Telephone
| Collectors I handed out maybe forty or fifty copies resulting in new 
members
| "signing up"  - one is already up and running with an ATA hosted off 
another
| Asterisk and is working on getting his own up and running soon. Others are
| on the way.
|
| I've also discovered that these old telephones I've been hoarding for 
years
| can actually be used to speak to others with an interest in telecoms!
| And thanks to Asterisk we now are not only able to preserve old switches 
(of
| most varieties) but can recreate the network that linked them.
|
| Long may we be making and receiving calls
|
| Ian Jolly
|
| p.s.  Are Peter Duffield and I the closest two Asterisk Tandems at just 
one
| mile apart as the crow flies ?
|
| +44 (0)  352      82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from
| CNET - the Heritage Telephone Network
| +44 (0)1352 83 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from 
Public
| Telephone Network
| FWD Telephone No  83 2230
|
|
| ----- Original Message ----- 
| From: "Shane Young" <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
| To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
| Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:43 PM
| Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
|
|
| >I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
| >
| > Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
| >
| >> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their 
Asterisk
| >> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but
| >> what
| >> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
| >
| > I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
| >
| > There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not
| > switches.
| >
| > Space needed for a switch
| > Cash to buy a switch
| > Power needed for a switch
| > Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
| > etc.
| >
| > These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
| > connectivity for their phone displays.
| >
| > I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
| > even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
| > none of them are connected to anything.
| >
| > Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
| > Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll
| > be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
| > calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
| >
| > I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
| > banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a bunch
| > of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
| > talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good
| > FXS gateway for a display.
| >
| > I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
| > participate in any way they can.
| >
| >
| >
| > --Shane
| > +1-821-7311 CNET
| >
| > ----------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > VoIP mailing list
| > VoIP at ckts.info
| > http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
| > Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
| >
| >
| > -- 
| > No virus found in this incoming message.
| > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date:
| > 01/11/2007 06:01
| >
|
| _______________________________________________
| VoIP mailing list
| VoIP at ckts.info
| http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
| Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
|
|
| -- 
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date: 
11/1/2007 6:01 AM
| 


From ratguy at insightbb.com  Thu Nov  1 13:05:31 2007
From: ratguy at insightbb.com (Jayson Smith)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:05:31 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
References: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865E0@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>
	<000701c81c47$155cacf0$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>
	<00d701c81c7a$f7fd7570$e7f86050$@com>
Message-ID: <000d01c81cba$2c64fdd0$6900a8c0@H2C8F0>

Actually, I see 411 being used for internal DA within CNET. I'd love to 
think some day we'd have a voice recog and response system in place to do 
this. Too bad we can't afford offices full of operators for DA, intercept, 
0+ dialing, etc!
Jayson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Spenadel" <lee at spenadel.com>
To: "'Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches'" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET


> Why not map 411 through to Goog411?  I have my switch configured for that
> service and would be happy to host it for the group.  I would merely 
> forward
> it out my own 411 configuration.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
> Jayson Smith
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:22 AM
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
>
> I already have one thought, which echoes one of Greg's. The X11 codes 
> should
>
> not be assignable as office codes at all. E.G. the number 411-1111 should
> not be valid. However, there should be the ability for someone to provide 
> a
> service on a particular X11 code, E.G. 411 directory assistance service.
> Even this should not be possible for 911, which is a very important
> real-world service when it's needed. If anything at all is put on the 911
> code, it should be a 911 failure announcement, which, in my opinion, 
> should
> indicate the following things:
> The phone line is not properly configured to provide 911 service.
> If this is an emergency, the caller should dial 911 from a different
> telephone line. I know that's not very helpful, but a generic message 
> can't
> get much more specific.
> If the caller is conducting a test of their implementation of 911 service,
> the test has failed, and they should fix it.
> This message would be useful for times when someone dials 911 on a system
> which has been mistakenly configured to route 911 as a CNET call.
> Jayson
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
> To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>; "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
> Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
>
>
>>I apologize, guys.  I can see that everyone is fairly concerned about
>> putting their time and energies into a hobby that could fall apart
>> disastrously if a war over unsettled issues erupts.
>>
>> Something you should bear in mind: a new network could be started in
>> competition with this one, so your efforts at making asterisk boxes and
>> embedded asterisk firewalls would not ultimately go to waste.  You could
>> always take your marbles and go join a different game.
>>
>> All that said, I hope that we don't get to that point.  I kinda like all
>> the back and forth we have on the list, and I would miss it if the noise
>> level got too low.
>>
>> I am going to talk with Ian Jolly off-list, and see what it is that they
>> have put in place that keeps the UK switchers from warring over their
>> office codes.  I'm sure that the legacy phone network in Britain evolved
>> over time, so it can't be as cut and dried as it seems.
>>
>> Once I hear from him, I would like to get volunteers to be part of a
>> standards committee.  We could all bring our best ideas, discuss the
>> issues, along with possible solutions, and then present what we come up
>> with to everyone on this list for all of us to vote on.
>>
>> That's the only way I can think of that we can resolve some things
>> without burning up too much time on this mailing list, rehashing the
>> same things over and over.
>>
>> Once we have voted, any policies that we adopt will be added to the
>> ckts.info website.
>>
>> So, if you have a desire to be a part of the standards committee, please
>> drop me an email off-list, and we'll get this critter going in a
>> business-like, yet friendly, fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
>>> On Behalf Of John Novack
>>>
>>>
>>> The UK guys are ahead of us in their policy and planning so I
>>> don't consider a discussion out of line.
>>>
>>> By having a few policies in place we certainly don't destroy
>>> the informal nature of it all.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/ 

From braverma at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  1 15:28:38 2007
From: braverma at hotmail.com (Phil Braverman)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 21:28:38 +0000
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <BAY143-W41B98F4CFBF89CCE203467D38C0@phx.gbl>


> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:43:27 -0500> From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com> To: voip at ckts.info> Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers> > I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:> > Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:> > > I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk> > box should be a problem. Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what> > one collects is and can be different for all of us.> > I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."> > There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not switches.> > Space needed for a switch> Cash to buy a switch> Power needed for a switch> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony> etc.> > These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide > connectivity for their phone displays.> > I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away, > even without the 35W bridge). He has a great display of phones, but > none of them are connected to anything.> > Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to > Asterisk via an old channel bank. When I get my Itec EMS2 up, they'll > be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make > calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.> > I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel > banks, but there are other ways to connect as well. There are a bunch > of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there. We've > talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a good > FXS gateway for a display.> > I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to > participate in any way they can.> > > > --Shane> +1-821-7311 CNET> > ----------------------------------------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> VoIP mailing list> VoIP at ckts.info> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/Dear Shane,
 
I have been interested with old telephones for 40 years.  Would it be possible to hook up
my 2 old telephone to your switch using a sipura 1000 or 2000 converter.
 
Thanks for your time.
 
Philip Braverman
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

From greg at vyger.net  Thu Nov  1 18:13:25 2007
From: greg at vyger.net (Greg Blakely)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:13:25 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] To Those Who Volunteered
Message-ID: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865F1@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>

For those who volunteered for duty on the standards committee, I just
wanted you all to know that I have received your emails, and will be
creating a mailing list tonight, and will subscribe you.  That way, we
will have a list, but not a very big one, and it will bring down the
usage on this list -- for awhile, at least.

 
 
Greg


From jjones3601 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  1 18:39:48 2007
From: jjones3601 at yahoo.com (john jones)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 17:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
Message-ID: <235120.71670.qm@web34311.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ddyhea buchedda 'n hen phones!



----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Jolly <ian at uax.org.uk>
To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 1:40:34 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers


Whilst chuckling at the double negative :-)    (In Welsh - our local 
language they use double negatives all the time as standard practice !)

I couldn't agree more with Shane.  The beauty of CNET is the variety of
 
interest in those connected to it.  I have quite a few people on hosted
 off 
my Asterisk who only have an ATA and a single telephone (vintage or 
otherwise). Others have an ATA (or two) which are hooked up to a trunk
 port 
on a 'heritage' first generation electronic switch of some sort. I have
 a 
New Zealand Telecom 2+6 PABX small enough to sit under a bakelite
 telephone 
with a 'footprint' less than that of two phones sat side by side.(
 Ideal for 
converting the reverse NZ dial pulses in my case)

There are others who have been a great support through their knowledge
 of 
Asterisk but without an old switch.

It is the 'common bond' of the old telephony that drives us on ( I'm
 told 
that it is "treatable but not curable"so long as you keep taking the
 tablets 
:-)

Let us not make rules that are too 'tight'  but do everything to
 encourage 
others. In the UK I've produced a 'CNET' version of the old British
 Post 
Office's STD Dialling Code book of 1966 with the UK codes in the front
 part 
then the International codes, followed by a Directory of most UK
 numbers, 
and a selection of overseas numbers. The rear three pages show how to 
download the ZoIPer "softphone" and set it up to a "gateway" that we
 have 
set up that does not require any setting up other than in the
 "softphone". 
It is available on the CNET-UK-I group's website as a PDF to download
 and 
print your own copy off. At a coupe of recent meetings of Telephone 
Collectors I handed out maybe forty or fifty copies resulting in new
 members 
"signing up"  - one is already up and running with an ATA hosted off
 another 
Asterisk and is working on getting his own up and running soon. Others
 are 
on the way.

I've also discovered that these old telephones I've been hoarding for
 years 
can actually be used to speak to others with an interest in telecoms! 
And thanks to Asterisk we now are not only able to preserve old
 switches (of 
most varieties) but can recreate the network that linked them.

Long may we be making and receiving calls

Ian Jolly

p.s.  Are Peter Duffield and I the closest two Asterisk Tandems at just
 one 
mile apart as the crow flies ?

+44 (0)  352      82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from
 
CNET - the Heritage Telephone Network
+44 (0)1352 83 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from
  Public 
Telephone Network
FWD Telephone No  83 2230


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shane Young" <voiptandem at shaneyoung.com>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers


>I thought I'd start a new thread, but quote something from Dennis:
>
> Quoting Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>:
>
>> I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their
 Asterisk
>> box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors
 but 
>> what
>> one collects is and can be different for all of us.
>
> I think Dennis meant to say "shouldn't be a problem..."
>
> There are several reasons why somone might collect phones but not 
> switches.
>
> Space needed for a switch
> Cash to buy a switch
> Power needed for a switch
> Might not particularly interested in that aspect of telephony
> etc.
>
> These collectors could be using Asterisk to simply provide
> connectivity for their phone displays.
>
> I've been to Richard Rose's home (he's only about a half-hour away,
> even without the 35W bridge).  He has a great display of phones, but
> none of them are connected to anything.
>
> Currently, my rather small display at home is connected just to
> Asterisk via an old channel bank.  When I get my Itec EMS2 up,
 they'll
> be connected to that, but for now you can call the phones and make
> calls from them to both the PSTN and CNET.
>
> I have a T1 card in my asterisk box that feeds this and other channel
> banks, but there are other ways to connect as well.  There are a
 bunch
> of FXS gateway / analog telephone adapter devices out there.  We've
> talked about the Cisco 3810 here several times which would make a
 good
> FXS gateway for a display.
>
> I think as collectors, we should encourage everyone who collects to
> participate in any way they can.
>
>
>
> --Shane
> +1-821-7311 CNET
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date: 
> 01/11/2007 06:01
> 

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/




From voiptandem at shaneyoung.com  Thu Nov  1 19:42:32 2007
From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com (Shane Young)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:42:32 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
In-Reply-To: <BAY143-W41B98F4CFBF89CCE203467D38C0@phx.gbl>
References: <20071101104327.3az3llnr404kkgoc@secure.shaneyoung.com>
	<BAY143-W41B98F4CFBF89CCE203467D38C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20071101204232.mkwo1ollq8cs4k0s@secure.shaneyoung.com>

Quoting Phil Braverman <braverma at hotmail.com>:


> I have been interested with old telephones for 40 years.  Would it   
> be possible to hook up
> my 2 old telephone to your switch using a sipura 1000 or 2000 converter.

Yes!
--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------


From maheshkv_india at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  2 13:21:13 2007
From: maheshkv_india at yahoo.com (Mahesh)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
Message-ID: <322352.26819.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with softphones.... 
   
  Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some more fun with asterisk...
   
  Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I already read thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel ready for action...
   
  --Thanks
   
  --Zorgan

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From lee at spenadel.com  Fri Nov  2 13:22:34 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:22:34 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable
Message-ID: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>

Does anyone know if 100pr or 25pr CMP (plenum rated) cable is manufactured
that is suitable for installation in conduit between two buildings?  The
buildings are across the street from one another and the conduit length will
be about 200 - 300'.  I believe the conduit will be 4' steel pipe. 

 

Thanks in advance

Lee

 

 


From donw at engineeringinc.com  Fri Nov  2 13:26:51 2007
From: donw at engineeringinc.com (Don E. Wisdom)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:26:51 -0600
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable
In-Reply-To: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>
References: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>
Message-ID: <490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE86@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>

Yes they do but you may have to buy a trunk cable.   Also several
different companies make cables with either 5 or 6 cat5e cables in one
jacket.   That stuff isn't cheap tho
--Don





-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of Lee Spenadel
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:23 PM
To: ATCA at LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG; singwires at yahoogroups.com; 'Voice Over IP
Tandem for Analog Switches'
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable

Does anyone know if 100pr or 25pr CMP (plenum rated) cable is
manufactured
that is suitable for installation in conduit between two buildings?  The
buildings are across the street from one another and the conduit length
will
be about 200 - 300'.  I believe the conduit will be 4' steel pipe. 

 

Thanks in advance

Lee

 

 

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

!SIG:472b7b1b85185157916032!


From david at josephson.com  Fri Nov  2 13:39:43 2007
From: david at josephson.com (David Josephson)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:39:43 -0700
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <322352.26819.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <322352.26819.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <472B7CFF.2020703@josephson.com>

Mahesh wrote:
> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with softphones.... 
>    
>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some more fun with asterisk...
There have been a bunch of inquiries about this recently. If you have a 
VT1005v, no one yet has published a way to get it unlocked from Vonage. 
If you have a VT1005, you can email me for the location of the files you 
need.

From watson061502 at ameritech.net  Fri Nov  2 13:45:21 2007
From: watson061502 at ameritech.net (Nathaniel D. Watson)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:45:21 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <322352.26819.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>

Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use with
them.

Nathan


on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:

> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
> softphones.... 
>    
>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some more fun
> with asterisk...
>    
>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I already read
> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel ready for
> action...
>    
>   --Thanks
>    
>   --Zorgan
> 
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/



From hockd at dteenergy.com  Fri Nov  2 13:56:35 2007
From: hockd at dteenergy.com (Dennis D Hock)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:56:35 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>
References: <C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <OFB4CBC6A1.61FA3B99-ON85257387.006D8CEC-85257387.006D8CF0@dteenergy.com>

John Novack may know of a secret password.  Not sure.

Dennis H.

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: "Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
From: "Nathaniel D. Watson" <watson061502 at ameritech.net>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/02/2007 03:45PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.

Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use with
them.

Nathan


on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:

> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
> softphones....
>
>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some
more fun
> with asterisk...
>
>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I already
read
> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel ready
for
> action...
>
>   --Thanks
>
>   --Zorgan
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

From lee at spenadel.com  Fri Nov  2 14:13:33 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:13:33 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>
References: <322352.26819.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <00fd01c81d8c$d81d3980$8857ac80$@com>

It is locked to Vonage, though there are posts on the net regarding
unlocking it.  I got to the first step to unlock the advanced pages, but
never got to the other locked area to be able to assign different SIP
providers.  It was taking too much time and you also run the risk of it
locking itself again, as I came to understand.  So I purchased an unlocked
one on ebay. Works like a champ.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
Nathaniel D. Watson
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:45 PM
To: Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.

Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use with
them.

Nathan


on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:

> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
> softphones.... 
>    
>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some more
fun
> with asterisk...
>    
>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I already
read
> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel ready
for
> action...
>    
>   --Thanks
>    
>   --Zorgan
> 
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


From voiptandem at shaneyoung.com  Fri Nov  2 14:18:34 2007
From: voiptandem at shaneyoung.com (Shane Young)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:18:34 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable
In-Reply-To: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>
References: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>
Message-ID: <20071102151834.6wc3msalgo48kgsw@secure.shaneyoung.com>

I don't know about cat6, but we used to put in 25pr cat5 stuff all the time.

I'm not sure what your application is that requires cat6, keeping in  
mind that ethernet is lmited to 100 meters (about 328 feet).

With that in mind, you don't have much room left to run cables from  
your termination points on each end out to workstations.

If whatever you are connecting is very close to the ends, then you'd be ok.

Is this for something other than ethernet?



Quoting Lee Spenadel <lee at spenadel.com>:

> Does anyone know if 100pr or 25pr CMP (plenum rated) cable is manufactured
> that is suitable for installation in conduit between two buildings?  The
> buildings are across the street from one another and the conduit length will
> be about 200 - 300'.  I believe the conduit will be 4' steel pipe.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>

--Shane
+1-821-7311 CNET

----------------------------------------------------------------


From jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org  Fri Nov  2 15:11:49 2007
From: jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org (John Novack)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:11:49 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <OFB4CBC6A1.61FA3B99-ON85257387.006D8CEC-85257387.006D8CF0@dteenergy.com>
References: <C350F691.E8E1%watson061502@ameritech.net>
	<OFB4CBC6A1.61FA3B99-ON85257387.006D8CEC-85257387.006D8CF0@dteenergy.com>
Message-ID: <472B9295.2020806@stromberg-carlson.org>

No.
I have a VT 1005 working on my system, and a VT1005V in use from Vonage.
No known way (yet ) to unlock one.

JN


Dennis D Hock wrote:
> John Novack may know of a secret password.  Not sure.
>
> Dennis H.
>
> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>
>
> To: "Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
> Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> From: "Nathaniel D. Watson" <watson061502 at ameritech.net>
> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
> Date: 11/02/2007 03:45PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
>
> Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
> impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use with
> them.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>   
>> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
>> softphones....
>>
>>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get some
>>     
> more fun
>   
>> with asterisk...
>>
>>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I already
>>     
> read
>   
>> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel ready
>>     
> for
>   
>> action...
>>
>>   --Thanks
>>
>>   --Zorgan
>>
>>  __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

-- 
Dog is my co-pilot


From lee at spenadel.com  Fri Nov  2 15:20:49 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:20:49 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Cat6 Cable
Message-ID: <012501c81d96$3e005c10$ba011430$@com>

I'm going to end up using the fiber for the data between buildings.  The
original spec was a total distance of about 250' for the data service, but
that now looks like it will be even further.  So the F/O cable will be used
to support the data and some gel filled cable for the voice.  Anyone have a
brand or manufacturer that they like in particular?

 

Thanks again.

Lee

 

 


From jjones3601 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  2 15:34:39 2007
From: jjones3601 at yahoo.com (john jones)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
Message-ID: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm not sure the bticonfig stuff won't unlock a Vonage Vt1005.  I only have my production VT1005 and am unwilling to risk it but from what I remember if it gets a valid config, it should take this.   Maybe John N knows this to be wrong?


John



----- Original Message ----
From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2007 5:11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.


No.
I have a VT 1005 working on my system, and a VT1005V in use from
 Vonage.
No known way (yet ) to unlock one.

JN


Dennis D Hock wrote:
> John Novack may know of a secret password.  Not sure.
>
> Dennis H.
>
> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>
>
> To: "Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
> Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> From: "Nathaniel D. Watson" <watson061502 at ameritech.net>
> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
> Date: 11/02/2007 03:45PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my
 asterisk.
>
> Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
> impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use
 with
> them.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>   
>> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
>> softphones....
>>
>>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get
 some
>>     
> more fun
>   
>> with asterisk...
>>
>>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I
 already
>>     
> read
>   
>> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel
 ready
>>     
> for
>   
>> action...
>>
>>   --Thanks
>>
>>   --Zorgan
>>
>>  __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>   

-- 
Dog is my co-pilot

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/




From joe at rootnode.com  Fri Nov  2 16:00:48 2007
From: joe at rootnode.com (Joe Koberg)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:00:48 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable
In-Reply-To: <20071102151834.6wc3msalgo48kgsw@secure.shaneyoung.com>
References: <00d501c81d85$bb232e40$31698ac0$@com>
	<20071102151834.6wc3msalgo48kgsw@secure.shaneyoung.com>
Message-ID: <472B9E10.2030803@rootnode.com>

Shane Young wrote:
> I don't know about cat6, but we used to put in 25pr cat5 stuff all the time.
>
> I'm not sure what your application is that requires cat6, keeping in  
> mind that ethernet is lmited to 100 meters (about 328 feet).
>   
> With that in mind, you don't have much room left to run cables from  
> your termination points on each end out to workstations.
>   


Modern ethernet connected to full-duplex ports on both ends works pretty 
well even for quite long runs. If you force the adapters or switches to 
100mbit it may perform better (or maybe worse because gigabit uses 
advanced signal coding). The key is that it must be full-duplex to avoid 
the timing issues associated with two nodes far apart. The ethernet 
network "diameter" was historically limited by signal timing, not signal 
quality.

I have certainly linked two buildings at gigabit speeds with a run of 
cat6 in an underground conduit.  I would be more careful with aerial 
runs. Some might worry about ground loops or static issues, but ethernet 
is transformer-coupled so the ground loops aren't an issue. I also used 
a cheap gigabit switch at each end as a "ESD protector".... i dont mind 
replacing a $50 switch if it gets hit by static discharge. However they 
are still going after several years. The run is probably 150 yards.

When the phone company does it, they use gel-filled underground-rated 
cable, sometimes with a kevlar jacket to prevent cuts. They also 
terminate each end on grounded lightning protectors at the building 
entrance. This is probably required by building codes.


Joe Koberg
joe at osoft dot us






From jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org  Fri Nov  2 16:46:30 2007
From: jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org (John Novack)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:46:30 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>



john jones wrote:
> I'm not sure the bticonfig stuff won't unlock a Vonage Vt1005.  I only have my production VT1005 and am unwilling to risk it but from what I remember if it gets a valid config, it should take this.   Maybe John N knows this to be wrong?
>
>
> John
>   
I know little.
But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to change 
the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake that, 
perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change it.

JN

>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2007 5:11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
>
>
> No.
> I have a VT 1005 working on my system, and a VT1005V in use from
>  Vonage.
> No known way (yet ) to unlock one.
>
> JN
>
>
> Dennis D Hock wrote:
>   
>> John Novack may know of a secret password.  Not sure.
>>
>> Dennis H.
>>
>> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>>
>>
>> To: "Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
>> Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>> From: "Nathaniel D. Watson" <watson061502 at ameritech.net>
>> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
>> Date: 11/02/2007 03:45PM
>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my
>>     
>  asterisk.
>   
>> Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
>> impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use
>>     
>  with
>   
>> them.
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>> on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
>>> softphones....
>>>
>>>   Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get
>>>       
>  some
>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> more fun
>>   
>>     
>>> with asterisk...
>>>
>>>   Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I
>>>       
>  already
>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> read
>>   
>>     
>>> thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel
>>>       
>  ready
>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> for
>>   
>>     
>>> action...
>>>
>>>   --Thanks
>>>
>>>   --Zorgan
>>>
>>>  __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoIP mailing list
>>> VoIP at ckts.info
>>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>>     
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoIP mailing list
>> VoIP at ckts.info
>> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Dog is my co-pilot


From david at josephson.com  Fri Nov  2 17:04:01 2007
From: david at josephson.com (David Josephson)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:04:01 -0700
Subject: [VoIP] Cat6 Cable
In-Reply-To: <012501c81d96$3e005c10$ba011430$@com>
References: <012501c81d96$3e005c10$ba011430$@com>
Message-ID: <472BACE1.2060308@josephson.com>

Lee Spenadel wrote:
> I'm going to end up using the fiber for the data between buildings.  The
> original spec was a total distance of about 250' for the data service, but
> that now looks like it will be even further.  So the F/O cable will be used
> to support the data and some gel filled cable for the voice.  Anyone have a
> brand or manufacturer that they like in particular?
If you're happy using the fiber, fine. But most Ethernet devices will 
work fine at longer distances than 328 feet -- 5-600 ft is usually not a 
problem. Just put a hub or switch at each end of the interbuilding cable 
and you'll be fine.

Any cable that meets RUS specification is fine for voice -- if in fact 
you even need gel filled. If it's in conduit, why? Getting people to 
sell you a few hundred feet of outside plant cable can be tricky, but I 
have had good luck with Anixter.

From duncan.b.smith at gmail.com  Fri Nov  2 17:20:15 2007
From: duncan.b.smith at gmail.com (Duncan Smith)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:20:15 -0700
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>
Message-ID: <20071102232015.GI1490@5.7.5.5.6.6.6.6.0.2.1.e164.arpa>

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:46:30PM -0400, John Novack wrote:
> I know little.
>
> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to
> change the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake
> that, perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change
> it.

I know nothing.

Usually one can spoof the provisioning server with enough effort,
unless it needs some sort of cryptographic signature.

The question in this case is whether the amount of effort it takes to
change the thing is greater than the amount of money it costs to scrap
the Vonage adapter and spring for something unlocked.  How much is
your time worth?  :)

-- 
Duncan Smith  --------\    http://students.washington.edu/f/    /---
  ()  ascii ribbon     \--- Signed/encrypted mail preferred ---/
  /\    campaign    [ against html mail ]  [ support open formats ]

From greg at vyger.net  Fri Nov  2 17:32:30 2007
From: greg at vyger.net (Greg Blakely)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:32:30 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CNET for Collectors who are not Switchers
Message-ID: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865F3@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>

I don't know.

Shane:  How close are you to Eden Prairie?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] 
> On Behalf Of Ian Jolly
> 
> p.s.  Are Peter Duffield and I the closest two Asterisk 
> Tandems at just one mile apart as the crow flies ?
> 


From greg at vyger.net  Fri Nov  2 17:34:29 2007
From: greg at vyger.net (Greg Blakely)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:34:29 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] CAT6 Cable
Message-ID: <A691C3685A152E4AAC9608B8D8E113166865F4@godzilla.hickory.vyger.net>

  The buildings are across the street 
> from one another and the conduit length will be about 200 - 
> 300'.  I believe the conduit will be 4' steel pipe. 
> 
That's some seriously thick pipe!

From kxt at fubegra.net  Fri Nov  2 18:08:20 2007
From: kxt at fubegra.net (Russ Price)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:08:20 -0500
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>
Message-ID: <472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>

John Novack wrote:
> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to change 
> the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake that, 
> perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change it.

If you had a second Ethernet port in your Asterisk machine, you could 
give it a static address corresponding to what the Vonage box expects.

Whether or not you could make it actually work with Asterisk is an open 
question, though. :/

	Russ

From lee at spenadel.com  Fri Nov  2 19:03:02 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:03:02 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Cat6 Cable
In-Reply-To: <472BACE1.2060308@josephson.com>
References: <012501c81d96$3e005c10$ba011430$@com>
	<472BACE1.2060308@josephson.com>
Message-ID: <000601c81db5$48dda330$da98e990$@com>

I've done Ethernet before at distances around 600' myself with no errors.

-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
David Josephson
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:04 PM
To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Cat6 Cable

Lee Spenadel wrote:
> I'm going to end up using the fiber for the data between buildings.  The
> original spec was a total distance of about 250' for the data service, but
> that now looks like it will be even further.  So the F/O cable will be
used
> to support the data and some gel filled cable for the voice.  Anyone have
a
> brand or manufacturer that they like in particular?
If you're happy using the fiber, fine. But most Ethernet devices will 
work fine at longer distances than 328 feet -- 5-600 ft is usually not a 
problem. Just put a hub or switch at each end of the interbuilding cable 
and you'll be fine.

Any cable that meets RUS specification is fine for voice -- if in fact 
you even need gel filled. If it's in conduit, why? Getting people to 
sell you a few hundred feet of outside plant cable can be tricky, but I 
have had good luck with Anixter.
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


From jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org  Fri Nov  2 19:35:19 2007
From: jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org (John Novack)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:35:19 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org>
	<472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>
Message-ID: <472BD057.7050003@stromberg-carlson.org>



Russ Price wrote:
> John Novack wrote:
>> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to 
>> change the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake 
>> that, perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change it.
>
> If you had a second Ethernet port in your Asterisk machine, you could 
> give it a static address corresponding to what the Vonage box expects.
>
> Whether or not you could make it actually work with Asterisk is an 
> open question, though. :/
>
>     Russ
The VT 1005 isn't worth any more of my time, locked or not!

John Novack


-- 
Dog is my co-pilot


From donw at engineeringinc.com  Fri Nov  2 19:52:21 2007
From: donw at engineeringinc.com (Don E. Wisdom)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:52:21 -0600
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <472BD057.7050003@stromberg-carlson.org>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org><472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>
	<472BD057.7050003@stromberg-carlson.org>
Message-ID: <490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE89@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>

If you do get it unlocked and happen to do a factory reset guess what
happens!!   It gets automagically relocked.  Just a FYI for anyone whos
gonna try.
--Don



-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of John Novack
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:35 PM
Cc: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.



Russ Price wrote:
> John Novack wrote:
>> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to 
>> change the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake 
>> that, perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change
it.
>
> If you had a second Ethernet port in your Asterisk machine, you could 
> give it a static address corresponding to what the Vonage box expects.
>
> Whether or not you could make it actually work with Asterisk is an 
> open question, though. :/
>
>     Russ
The VT 1005 isn't worth any more of my time, locked or not!

John Novack


-- 
Dog is my co-pilot

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

!SIG:472bd068320617946598358!


From jjones3601 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  2 19:56:40 2007
From: jjones3601 at yahoo.com (john jones)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
Message-ID: <547503.36954.qm@web34305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Of course probably the most important point is the quality of the VT1005.  I guess if you have a "free" VT1005, it is worth some effort to use it.  I've found the VT1005 a bit annoying to config and fine tune but, it does work OK if you spend the time.  I think Doug Alderdice probably has the put the most effort into this if I recall correctly.

JJ

----- Original Message ----
From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
To: john jones <jjones3601 at yahoo.com>; Voice Over IP <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2007 6:46:30 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.





  





john jones wrote:

  I'm not sure the bticonfig stuff won't unlock a Vonage Vt1005.  I only have my production VT1005 and am unwilling to risk it but from what I remember if it gets a valid config, it should take this.   Maybe John N knows this to be wrong?


John
  

I know little.

But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to change
the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake that,
perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change it. 



JN




  
----- Original Message ----
From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2007 5:11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.


No.
I have a VT 1005 working on my system, and a VT1005V in use from
 Vonage.
No known way (yet ) to unlock one.

JN


Dennis D Hock wrote:
  
  
    John Novack may know of a secret password.  Not sure.

Dennis H.

-----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----


To: "Mahesh.Veerappa at sonusnet.com, Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
From: "Nathaniel D. Watson" <watson061502 at ameritech.net>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/02/2007 03:45PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my
    
  
   asterisk.
  
  
    Perhaps someone else knows a work-around or hack, but I'm under the
impression that if it came with Vonage, then it is "locked" for use
    
  
   with
  
  
    them.

Nathan


on 11/2/07 3:21 PM, Mahesh at maheshkv_india at yahoo.com wrote:

  
    
    
      Recently got my asterisk installed and woking within my network with
softphones....

  Would like to tweak my old vt1005v leftover from vonage to get
      
    
  
   some
  
  
    
          
      
    
    more fun
  
    
    
      with asterisk...

  Please favour me with the link to docs & tools necessary... I
      
    
  
   already
  
  
    
          
      
    
    read
  
    
    
      thru the vt1005v information in the mailing list archive and feel
      
    
  
   ready
  
  
    
          
      
    
    for
  
    
    
      action...

  --Thanks

  --Zorgan

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
    
      
    
    _______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

  
    
  
    



-- 
Dog is my co-pilot




From lee at spenadel.com  Fri Nov  2 20:00:33 2007
From: lee at spenadel.com (Lee Spenadel)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:00:33 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE89@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org><472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>	<472BD057.7050003@stromberg-carlson.org>
	<490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE89@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>
Message-ID: <000801c81dbd$529db1f0$f7d915d0$@com>

Exactly what I mentioned earlier.  I couldn't remember what the
circumstances were behind a relock, but what Don says is true.  That's when
I bailed on the idea and bought an unlocked one.

-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf Of
Don E. Wisdom
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:52 PM
To: jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org; Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.

If you do get it unlocked and happen to do a factory reset guess what
happens!!   It gets automagically relocked.  Just a FYI for anyone whos
gonna try.
--Don



-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of John Novack
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:35 PM
Cc: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.



Russ Price wrote:
> John Novack wrote:
>> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to 
>> change the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake 
>> that, perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change
it.
>
> If you had a second Ethernet port in your Asterisk machine, you could 
> give it a static address corresponding to what the Vonage box expects.
>
> Whether or not you could make it actually work with Asterisk is an 
> open question, though. :/
>
>     Russ
The VT 1005 isn't worth any more of my time, locked or not!

John Novack


-- 
Dog is my co-pilot

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

!SIG:472bd068320617946598358!

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/


From donw at engineeringinc.com  Fri Nov  2 20:04:14 2007
From: donw at engineeringinc.com (Don E. Wisdom)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:04:14 -0600
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <000801c81dbd$529db1f0$f7d915d0$@com>
References: <172125.49945.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><472BA8C6.606@stromberg-carlson.org><472BBBF4.4010803@fubegra.net>	<472BD057.7050003@stromberg-carlson.org><490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE89@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>
	<000801c81dbd$529db1f0$f7d915d0$@com>
Message-ID: <490F06C61AA78F4AB1FD2081EDE0ED7F1BCE8A@backupsvr.corporate.engineeringinc.org>

Yup... ive had a few people I know burned on that one.   Playing with
locked hardware just is more trouble than its worth. 
--Don






-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of Lee Spenadel
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:01 PM
To: 'Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches';
jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.

Exactly what I mentioned earlier.  I couldn't remember what the
circumstances were behind a relock, but what Don says is true.  That's
when
I bailed on the idea and bought an unlocked one.

-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of
Don E. Wisdom
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:52 PM
To: jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org; Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.

If you do get it unlocked and happen to do a factory reset guess what
happens!!   It gets automagically relocked.  Just a FYI for anyone whos
gonna try.
--Don



-----Original Message-----
From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info] On Behalf
Of John Novack
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:35 PM
Cc: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.



Russ Price wrote:
> John Novack wrote:
>> But, I do believe that with the locked version, one is unable to 
>> change the provisioning server address. If there was a way to fake 
>> that, perhaps, but I don't know if one could ever get in and change
it.
>
> If you had a second Ethernet port in your Asterisk machine, you could 
> give it a static address corresponding to what the Vonage box expects.
>
> Whether or not you could make it actually work with Asterisk is an 
> open question, though. :/
>
>     Russ
The VT 1005 isn't worth any more of my time, locked or not!

John Novack


-- 
Dog is my co-pilot

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/



_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

!SIG:472bd87285181088215118!


From stfkerman at jps.net  Fri Nov  2 20:15:07 2007
From: stfkerman at jps.net (Steph Kerman)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:15:07 -0400
Subject: [VoIP] Need tools & docs to work on vt1005v on my asterisk.
In-Reply-To: <547503.36954.qm@web34305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <547503.36954.qm@web34305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <472BD9AB.3080709@jps.net>

Has anyone compared the boards to see how they differ?  It might be 
something as simple as the contents of a socketed non-volatile memory.  
If so, it should be possible to convert "v's" to "non-v's".

=SK=

john jones wrote:
> Of course probably the most important point is the quality of the VT1005.  I guess if you have a "fr