Calling Between Two VoIPo Numbers

I haven't been on here in a while. The service is very reliable. I wanted to post here before turning in a ticket to see if anyone had a similar experience. I just noticed that when calling my mother, a VoIPo customer, from my VoIPo line, it went straight to voicemail. She reported that her phone did not ring. I left a message and the MWI lit up. She called me back on my VoIPo line and it defaulted to my wife's cell phone, which is our backup number. Other than this glitch, everything is working well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Odom

I haven't been on here in a while. The service is very reliable. I wanted to post here before turning in a ticket to see if anyone had a similar experience. I just noticed that when calling my mother, a VoIPo customer, from my VoIPo line, it went straight to voicemail. She reported that her phone did not ring. I left a message and the MWI lit up. She called me back on my VoIPo line and it defaulted to my wife's cell phone, which is our backup number. Other than this glitch, everything is working well.

---

I would put in a ticket and perhaps for your mom as well.
Maybe you are each on different servers. They'll figure it out quickly..

Sort of related ... I'd try this instead of posting but everyone else is asleep. Does calling between line 1 and line 2 work with VOIPo? In other words if I pick up (say) line 2 and dial are own number will line 1 ring? And, vice-versa.

I have the same problem anytime my 2 lines are on different servers. I can always call from my non-BYOD line to BYOD, but often have trouble the other way. I've wondered why I ever have issues calling from one VOIPo line to another, but haven't gotten any answer to that one yet.

This is a known issue which we are working on ironinig out within this week.
The problem relates some devices with a certain NAT setup. Rest assured it is being looked into.

PS. Bill - I see Luke got to your ticket. Please give the device a quick powercycle for the change to take affect - you've been switched to the same server as your mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

I have the same problem anytime my 2 lines are on different servers.

---

And the subtle difference is both lines are the same VOIPo number.

If VOIPo handled a cloned line, the same as an ATA with a VOIPo number, and a softphone with the same number ...

I do not know if VOIPo has compared other services for ideas. At my recent employer, we were limited by our phone switch (don't know which kind.) It has a call center line that will bounce from available phone to available phone, play a background message while in process, and never reach voicemail. We also have other departments that have a separate line that can ring on all the Service Tech's desks simultaneously. Both a poor compromises, but I wonder if your cloned line is another thing that may need a fresh approach? I think it is a compromise, but got you up and running fast.

Why not identify the MAC ID from each device? Always group twin IDs to one one server, and profile the NAT based on MAC ID so it counts as one device. Use that identifying MAC ID and Port number to assign an internal extension for that number. These extensions could be identified in vPanel ... or have a star code to tell you its number?

Implementing this, your database is more complicated(robust), but now you have invented a primary number with secondary extensions. Let routing route extensions in and out as an enhanced feature. :)

The doors open to many possibilities as I think about that approach. The inbound ring could be a checklist of all available extensions. They could be all checked by default, but optionally disabled. Routing to that extension could override this for special handling. It could allow for a call attendant approach as an optional feature. You never need more than one real number, and could pay extra for a certain limit of expanded extensions.

One caveat would be each MAC ID may need an E911 profile mapped to it, because the extensions could be anywhere in the world (in theory).

(I guess I should have spun this to a new thread ... :p)

Just to clarify, I'm talking about 2 different phone numbers/lines/devices. Both of my cloned lines are on the same server.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usa2k

And the subtle difference is both lines are the same VOIPo number.

If VOIPo handled a cloned line, the same as an ATA with a VOIPo number, and a softphone with the same number ...

I do not know if VOIPo has compared other services for ideas. At my recent employer, we were limited by our phone switch (don't know which kind.) It has a call center line that will bounce from available phone to available phone, play a background message while in process, and never reach voicemail. We also have other departments that have a separate line that can ring on all the Service Tech's desks simultaneously. Both a poor compromises, but I wonder if your cloned line is another thing that may need a fresh approach? I think it is a compromise, but got you up and running fast.

Why not identify the MAC ID from each device? Always group twin IDs to one one server, and profile the NAT based on MAC ID so it counts as one device. Use that identifying MAC ID and Port number to assign an internal extension for that number. These extensions could be identified in vPanel ... or have a star code to tell you its number?

Implementing this, your database is more complicated(robust), but now you have invented a primary number with secondary extensions. Let routing route extensions in and out as an enhanced feature. :)

The doors open to many possibilities as I think about that approach. The inbound ring could be a checklist of all available extensions. They could be all checked by default, but optionally disabled. Routing to that extension could override this for special handling. It could allow for a call attendant approach as an optional feature. You never need more than one real number, and could pay extra for a certain limit of expanded extensions.

One caveat would be each MAC ID may need an E911 profile mapped to it, because the extensions could be anywhere in the world (in theory).

(I guess I should have spun this to a new thread ... :p)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VOIPoDylan

This is a known issue which we are working on ironinig out within this week.
The problem relates some devices with a certain NAT setup. Rest assured it is being looked into.

PS. Bill - I see Luke got to your ticket. Please give the device a quick powercycle for the change to take affect - you've been switched to the same server as your mother.

---

Wow, look what my simple little thread has wrought...;)
Anyway, thanks, Dylan, for responding. After power cycling my device, it is working well.
I will be submitting a review on DSL Reports and one thing I will emphasize is VoIPo's outstanding customer support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VOIPoDylan

This is a known issue which we are working on ironinig out within this week.
The problem relates some devices with a certain NAT setup. Rest assured it is being looked into.

PS. Bill - I see Luke got to your ticket. Please give the device a quick powercycle for the change to take affect - you've been switched to the same server as your mother.

---

Dylan - were the issues with NAT resolved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Dylan - were the issues with NAT resolved?

---

No. I had simply placed the callers account on the same server.
The NAT issues become a problem only when the caller is on a different server from the callee and there are multiple routers involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VOIPoDylan

No. I had simply placed the callers account on the same server.
The NAT issues become a problem only when the caller is on a different server from the callee and there are multiple routers involved.

---

Doesn't this imply that since your users are distributed across different servers callers will not be able to call if they're on different servers? E.g., if ptrowski, burris and I are on three different servers we wont be able to talk to each other. I hate to say this - but isn't there a fundamental flaw in the architecture here?

This is a known bug which is actively being worked on.
I believe some progress was made on Thursday - It will be announced soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VOIPoDylan

This is a known bug which is actively being worked on.
I believe some progress was made on Thursday - It will be announced soon.

---

Reassuring. Appreciate the prompt update!

Hey guys -- feel free to give this another go -- we have made some progress regarding some of these edge case scenario issues some of you guys have experienced!

Let us know how it goes!

Happy Calling!
________
Threesome korean