Messages

1

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Unable to transfer from hold

« on: February 19, 2015, 02:28:43 PM »

Just wanted to post a follow-up here in case it helps the next person.

Problem was that the user who could not pick up calls placed on hold, was not a member of the Trunk Group that placed the call on hold.
Specifically, that user's keymap was pointed to the wrong Hunt Group.

cheers

2

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Unable to transfer from hold

« on: February 06, 2015, 12:49:28 PM »

Thanks for the reply.  I have verified that the PBX-side config for both good and bad extension is the same, and have also verified that the config in each phone is the same when placed into programming mode.

Is there any other config I should be aware of?

I ended up finally opening a support ticket with Mitel Support, though from past experience, I'm not sure they will be at all helpful.
I'll update this thread with results as they come.  In the meantime, if any other ideas pop into mind, do let me know.
Thanks!

3

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Unable to transfer from hold

« on: February 05, 2015, 01:35:39 PM »

Mitel 5000 w/ remote 8662e phones.  No MBG  involved on the remote end.  Cable modem bridge -> Linksys WRT54GL w/ Tomato.

User on the remote end cannot pick up calls that have been placed on hold by someone else.  He sees a solid red light, not a blinking one, that would indicate he can pick up.

This is actually happening on a couple remote sites now.
Any idea what could be happening?
All other remote sites are working fine.
We are using 1:1 Nat on PBX on main office, and I know people have reported problems with this, but I would think that the fact that some remote sites work fine, would indicate that the 1:1 NAT isn't the culprit.
Anyway, anyone have any ideas?  I'm stumped and a bit frustrated, after spending the last week and a half replacing the remote user's Comcast Netgear modem/firewall with a Motorola SB6141, and configuring the Tomato gateway, thinking that Comcast's equipment was causing the issue.
Still happening though.
Thanks for any ideas!

4

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Remote office phones not working in office with more than one phone

« on: January 19, 2015, 02:29:54 PM »

@Tech Electronics:
I'm going to the client's office today to do these tests in person (up till now, the remote users have been telling me the symptoms as the occur, so I can't vouch for the absolute validity of these symptoms).
I'll post a follow up in a bit.

@619Tech:
I've heard similar "horror stories" about trying to successfully use 1:1 NAT. On the other hand, yes, all the other remote sites work without issue, so I have to assume the 1:1 NAT is working.  Note that all of this setup was done by someone other than me; a person whose technical know-how in networking is not perhaps best suited for this :-)  I am actually debating changing their 1:1 NAT to being only port forwarded simply for security reasons, but I don't want to another variable to the equation at the moment.

Anyway, at the remote site, the multiple endpoints are plugged directly into the modem, which has four ports, and has a private internal subnet of 10.5.10.0/24. I'm wondering if this modem is problematic, because obviously, it has to do some kind of NAT in order to translate addresses from the private to public interface.  There are, however, no settings for configuring this NAT. This may be what others were referring to when they say the Comcast's modems are problematic when using them as the gateway/router with ip phones.

Let me ask you this: In theory, in my scenario, with two properly configured endpoints (without Teleworker / MGB), should I be able to plug both phones into a router and have them function properly side by side?  I have to believe the answer is yes, but the part that is confusing me, is that one of the other remote sites only has a single phone, and he was having trouble until he port forwarded the appropriate ports on his end, to the ip address of his Mitel phone.  I can't vouch for his statement, since I didn't see his config, but if that were true, how would one apply that to an office with TWO endpoints?
(I think the answer is that port forwarding simply does not really need to be done on the endpoint side of things.  The firewall does, however, need to allow outgoing traffic on the necessary ports. )

5

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Remote office phones not working in office with more than one phone

« on: January 16, 2015, 06:56:31 PM »

I'm trying to resolve a problem for a client that has a Mitel 5000 PBX with 8662e phones.
Every remote site except for one, has a single phone. The other remote office has two remote phones, and this is the site that is not working properly.
There are some instances of one-way audio, which obviously points to a NAT/firewall problem, but I have literally scoured these forums and others, and no answer has resolved the issue.
Examples of relevant-looking posts that have not helped:
http://mitelforums.com/forum/index.php?topic=4031.0
http://mitelforums.com/forum/index.php?topic=3932.0
http://mitelforums.com/forum/index.php?topic=4679.0

SO, here's the scenario.
Mitel 5000 PBX with a public static IP that is 1:1 NAT'd to the PBX's internal IP.  To me, this takes NAT right out of the picture, at least on the 5000's end of things.

The remote office is on Comcast Business Class, with a Netgear modem.  The location also has a Sonicwall, but the phones are plugged directly into the cable modem, whose firewall rules are disabled.  It's in Residential Gateway mode, if that makes a difference.
The phones used to have this info:

Code: [Select]

static ip: 192.168.200.201
subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
gateway: 0.0.0.0
DHCP: enabled
Remote UDP port: 5567
Remote TCP port: 5566
Remote IPC IP address: (public IP of PBX)
TFTP address: 192.168.200.201
Since the sites are not connected via VPN, I changed the phones to the following (these are just the differences):

Code: [Select]

static ip: 10.5.10.200  (existing subnet on the comcast modem)
getway: 10.5.10.1
DHCP: disabled
TFTP: (public IP of PBX)
This literally made no difference. Both phones still partially work, and they have the same issues as before.

So what exactly are the issues?
Well, there are some specific cases of one-way audio, but really, we can tell that they are still broken by the following:
Call from a cell phone.  Answer with Phone A.  Place call on hold.  Phone A's red light is now blinking, indicating hold.  Go to Phone B, and the light is steady, so you can't pick up the line to transfer.

What seems to be happening is that there are two phones in the office, so the routing of the calls gets confused.  This remote office had no issues before they installed the second line.

Is this configuration even possible?  There is no MBG or Teleworker involved -- just the remote phones.
Can two phones exist in the same remote office in this scenario?  For their other remote offices, it is as simple as port forwarding the proper ports to the phone's ip address, but here, there are two phones, so I'm not clear on how the routing would work. This is assuming this even needs to be done in the first place, because as far as I know, I shouldn't have to port forward anything.

Sorry if this was long-winded. I'm sure I left out some important details, but let me know and I'll fill in the blanks.  Thanks for any help!