[VoIP] Firewall logs & status check results (CNETMWT)

[Chad Perkins]

On 1 Jan 2008 at 1:32, John R. Covert wrote:

[snip]
 
> Also, I thought Chad Perkins had an automated test and status thing
> running, that would only call test numbers explicitly listed as
> Milliwatt (or something) in the Member listings.  If we want automated
> testing, we should have it driven off of a standardized entry in the
> Member Listings, so that (a) you only get tested if you want, and (b)
> you can have the test be sent to any number or numbers, since we may
> need to test other than just full NXX codes.
> /john

Greg had offered to look into(?) adopting/hosting/incorporating the (CNET MW) test 
into ckts.info sometime ago.  I haven't talked to Greg in a while and this topic hasn't 
come up in quite some time, so I don't know where this offer stands and whether 
there is any interest in taking this to the next step and going "production".

The CNET "Milliwatt" Test was created in August of 2006 to create a "status board" 
of what CNET nodes were up and down, etc.  The (beta) page is here:
http://maine.maine.edu/~chad/cnetmwt.html
Someone once said 'there is no test like a real test'.  Seeing how most everyone at 
the time had a standard Milliwatt number on their Asterisk, this provided a non-
intrusive way to place calls to each tandem and record the result.

CNETMWT was designed to to create a color-coded view of what was up and what 
was down.  It used an enhanced dialcnet2 macro which used the same logic as real 
calls but also recorded bits of information to support the creation of the web page 
and build status history (i.e. down since 12/31/07).  CNETMWT would show ENUM 
status, call connection status, and made an attempt to check for a compatible codec 
(a problem that we still seem to struggle with).

If Greg or anyone has any interest in salvaging this project contact me on or off the 
list (or better yet, call! 1-955-9924).  The intention has always been to extend to test 
to all cnet nodes (tandems outside of North America), however there are a couple 
challenges.  One involves moving the page/files to a new webserver (mine does not 
support long filenames and I'm not inclined to rewrite the code to make the test 8.8 
friendly for the web server).  The second involves ckts.info portal and database 
additions, or manual data entry, monitoring and synchronization by me (which is poor 
design that I don't have the time waste on).

So this project languished again this fall until the CNET numbering assignment 
method was changed in such a way that broke the test for new members (granted 
this is not something someone can't write enough code to get around, but I'm done 
with it).


Getting back to John's e-mail, 	I would support the addition of a "test number" to the 
ckts.info database.  It would solve International and thousand block pooling issues 
noted above, however in defense of what Shane has done I don't think you can 
establish a "consent to be tested" separate from "consent to be called" policy.

Chad