- This topic has 22 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by Voipcomn.
21st September 2005 at 02:55 #30165StongGuest
Does Cisco5300 support SIP?
If does, how to config the 5300?
As someone told me, there must be a SIP Server, How to get a SIP server ?21st September 2005 at 04:16 #30166Honza VomackaGuest
Check the PortaSIP User Guide (http://www.portaone.com/resources/documentation/index.html), it has examples of the Cisco configuration for incoming/outgoing SIP calls.
Yes, there should be a SIP server – there are some commercial solutions available, as well as free ones.21st September 2005 at 16:02 #30167Teodor GeorgievGuest
Besided PortaSIP (a very expensive SIP server) there are a plenty of free ones:
1. SER (SIP Express Router)
3. Brekeke (not really free, I think the free license is up to 100 units).
Yes, Cisco 5300 does support SIP (as a sip UA – user agent) and you need a SIP proxy server in order to do the call routing.
As to your question – how to config the 5300, I will answer you if you answer me the question – how to build a house?21st September 2005 at 20:50 #30168JasonGuest
Why not get PortaSIP for free?
All of it’s components are open source anyway, and you can just request all Portaone modifications to it and they must share it with you. Just email Portaone and ask for the source codes of their open source components. If they intend to comply with GNU license agreement they must send it to you. If not, they are pirating GNU which not a good thing these days.
Basically GNU license says that any derived open source product is also open source.
It’s funny no PortaSip customer of Portaone has realised yet that it’s probably perfectly legal to take PortaSip components write the documentation on their own and start selling for half the price portaone sell it.
You can also do the same with sysmaster with their modified GnuGK, but not with their modified asterisk which they license from digium under commercial license.
Between portaone and sysmaster I prefer portaone. Both take open source products and sell it for a hefty price making huge money on other people work. But at least portaone has the decency to contribute some code back to the community (like rtpproxy for SER).22nd September 2005 at 08:27 #30169Teodor GeorgievGuest
Great words, Jason!
All the companies, who sell open-source-modified products must face the truth, that the some of the people aren’t that stupid.
Specially companies like Sysmaster (I would call them a “company” in a very careful manner), PortaOne (charging an arm and leg for a modification of the GPLed Vocal software packet), Arcavox and others…25th September 2005 at 20:30 #30170openmanGuest
I have a question for jason.
Are you sure that is the way the license works? If you upgrade the code itself, u make it available. If you write something which works on top of it, you don’t have to share it.
I know this is a fine line, but I believe it is true.
For example, you write an application to run on it, it is yours to sell, but you dont have to send it to asterisk community. Can you verify.
BTW, I am NOT a developer, just trying to understand the open source license.26th September 2005 at 00:22 #30171JasonGuest
With LGPL you only need share what you modify, with GPL you need share all ‘derivative work’. The test is fairly simple, if your application can compile only in the presence of opensource binaries or source files, it must be shared.
You do not have to send the changes to the community. But if you don’t, when someone request you must give the source code to that person. If will not do so then you loose the right to use and distribute the GPL code.
To Teodor Georgiev:
Vocal is not GPLed.
However PortaOne uses a modified SER as the heart of PortaSIP. SER is GPLed and so is Asterisk and GnuGK.5th October 2005 at 08:09 #30172Artem NaluzhnyGuest
Have you tried to sell PortaSIP to smb?
Do you know that PortaSIP is not a patched ser only?
Have you asked Porta for sources of PortaSIP?
Have you read PortaOne license?
Just do it 😉10th October 2005 at 17:57 #30173GPLGuest
I never used porta, but if it’s true that this company uses GPL software, any license agreement it creates that restrict GPL is invalid.16th October 2005 at 03:43 #30174To Artem NaluzhnyGuest
I’m curious, what is in PortaSip that is not opensource?26th October 2005 at 05:13 #30175Artem NaluzhnyGuest
Why not ask their staff directly?26th October 2005 at 20:14 #30176To Artem NaluzhnyGuest
Smart ass – google your name, you are “their staff”.27th October 2005 at 04:34 #30177Honza Vomacka to the rude guyGuest
This is exactly what he is saying: if you need to get more details about PortaOne product, contact PortaOne directly.9th November 2005 at 21:50 #30178SIP ServerGuest
SIP Server is not must. You only need if you need to route calls to SIP end points with dynamic IPs.
For SIP server SER will work well.
There is nothing in PortaSIP that Cisco does not have already.
Actually Porta-SIP cripples Cisco, since it replaces Cisco b2bua role. With Porta SIP you will loose many features in Cisco like:
– SIP-H323 protocol conversion
– Codecs transcoding,
– Calling card IVR,
– CDRs with all Cisco’s VSAs(like voice quality,PDD, etc…).10th November 2005 at 03:25 #30179Honza VomackaGuest
> SIP Server is not must.
What a bunch of nonsense… VoIP is “not must” either – you can use tam-tam drums or signaling smokes to communicate 🙂