Will sipXcom (15.xx)support two NIC's?

[bbe...@shaw.ca]

Hello,

We would like to have the phones talk to the server over on one card (we have that working on 4.4 now) and be able to use the web interface over another separate NIC (we couldn't do that in 4.4).

Has anybody done that or have any insights?

Thanks in advance,

...Brent...

Brent Besse, Network Administrator

Server, Network and Telecom Infrastructures | Royal Roads University

T 250.391.2721

2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC  Canada  V9B 5Y2 | royalroads.ca

[Tony Graziano]

No. Unless you are setting up teaming (I think). Sipx supports one ip address only.

[bbe...@shaw.ca]

Thanks Tony.

...Brent...

[Niek Vlessert]

Hi,

I don't agree with that. In my experience the proxy/registrar etc. processes will always use the network interface which is configured to route the largest subnet. I.e. if you have an interface with 192.168.1.1 and one with 192.168.2.1, and the default gateway is on 192.168.1.254, it will run on 192.168.1.1, because 0.0.0.0 is the largest subnet. :) Be careful though; the proxy/registrar will use the routing settings, but there's also a lot of configuration in /etc/sipxpbx with the IP adresses in there. So if default gateway says one thing and the configuration another stuff will fail.

Jetty, for the webinterface, will run on all interfaces by default.

So, you can get it running when you are careful. If your system is running fine with one interface, you should be able to add another without too much trouble, because the settings are correct already. No DHCP ofcourse because this will mess up your resolv.conf and default gateway. Add some small routes for that network interface if you want to access the webinterface from other subnets.

This can also be done with 4.4.

Regards,

Niek

 
Op dinsdag 23 juni 2015 16:24:24 UTC+2 schreef bbe...@shaw.ca:

[Michael Picher]

If you want to monkey with things like Niek says you might be able to get things to work.  We've done no work in the software to try and deal with multiple NICs.

Mike

Michael Picher, VP of Product Innovation
eZuce, Inc.

300 Brickstone Square

Suite 104

Andover, MA. 01810

O.978-296-1005 X2015 
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher> 

linkedin
www.ezuce.com

Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. Any dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. FMS

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sipxcom-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sipxcom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sipxco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sipxcom-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sipxcom-users/2b6a2180-048a-4505-9084-2722d1065888%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Niek Vlessert]

Hi,

Agree, it's not that I really want to do things like this. :) Some companies have a strict policy though; one interface for production and one interface for management and monitoring, that's why.

This of course only goes for the webinterface, but that was the question.

But come to think of it; I could use the internal Freeswitch as an SBC to route traffic through SipXecs to the other interface. But I will probably NEVER use something like that. ;)

Regards,

Niek

Op woensdag 24 juni 2015 11:53:21 UTC+2 schreef Michael Picher: