UKVoIPTalk.com

PhilT wrote:[color=blue]
> Paul Cupis wrote:
>[color=green]
>> SIP 2.0
>> [url]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2543.txt[/url]
>> [url]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> thanks, I wondered if there was a new version or something.[/color]

It just means RFC 3261 rather than 2543.


Nothing very special because 3261 came out in June 2002.


Tim

Tim wrote:
[color=blue]
> And that you couldn't receive calls.
>[/color]

that was its key advantage. Stop off at a Little Chef or whatever while
on the road, listen to your messages, make a few calls, carry on
undisturbed :-)

Phil

Tim brought next idea :[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
>> The only thing that let it down IMHO was the build quality of the
>> handsets. Drop one and it would fly into a million pieces..!
>>[/color]
>
> And that you couldn't receive calls.
>
> Tim[/color]

They came with a pager for recieving "calls" with. My pager had a Hull
number.

Never managed to desturct a handset, though two of my three developed
non-working key. I was able to construct one good handset out of two
faulty ones.

Tim wrote:[color=blue]
> PhilT wrote:[color=green]
>> Paul Cupis wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> SIP 2.0
>>> [url]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2543.txt[/url]
>>> [url]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt[/url]
>>>[/color]
>> thanks, I wondered if there was a new version or something.[/color]
>
> It just means RFC 3261 rather than 2543.
>
> Nothing very special because 3261 came out in June 2002.[/color]

Incorrect. RFC2543 describes SIP/2.0. RFC3261 describes some extensions
to the same protocol.

"Tim" <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote in message
news:44fc41c3$0$632$bed64819@news.gradwell.net[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
> > The only thing that let it down IMHO was the build
> > quality of the handsets. Drop one and it would fly into
> > a million pieces..!
> >[/color]
>
> And that you couldn't receive calls.[/color]

Yes you could. Not on the CT2 public system, but you could have a base
station similar to a DECT one on your own exchange lines. I had two, and
my handsets would ring for calls on either. Try getting a modern DECT
phone to do that.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> Yes you could. Not on the CT2 public system, but you could have a base
> station similar to a DECT one on your own exchange lines. I had two, and
> my handsets would ring for calls on either. Try getting a modern DECT
> phone to do that.
>[/color]

That's fairly standard. I have 2 DECT base stations at home that both
ring 2 DECT phones.

Tim

"Tim" <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote in message
news:44fdbab7$0$633$bed64819@news.gradwell.net[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
> > Yes you could. Not on the CT2 public system, but you
> > could have a base station similar to a DECT one on your
> > own exchange lines. I had two, and my handsets would
> > ring for calls on either. Try getting a modern DECT
> > phone to do that.
> >[/color]
>
> That's fairly standard. I have 2 DECT base stations at
> home that both ring 2 DECT phones.
>
> Tim[/color]

You can have a single handset ringing for two base stations without
switching..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones laid this down on his screen :[color=blue]
> "Tim" <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote in message
> news:44fdbab7$0$633$bed64819@news.gradwell.net[color=green]
>> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > Yes you could. Not on the CT2 public system, but you
>> > could have a base station similar to a DECT one on your
>> > own exchange lines. I had two, and my handsets would
>> > ring for calls on either. Try getting a modern DECT
>> > phone to do that.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> That's fairly standard. I have 2 DECT base stations at
>> home that both ring 2 DECT phones.
>>
>> Tim[/color]
>
> You can have a single handset ringing for two base stations without
> switching..?
>
> Ivor[/color]

The rabbit bases could each have 10 handsets registered. In turn, each
handset could register with 10 base stations. They were really very
good for that.

I've only ever seen this sort of ability with proprietory DECT
cellstations & handsets on telephone systems.

"Jono" <nothanks@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:mn.2c7a7d69222879fb.48968@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk

[snip]
[color=blue]
> The rabbit bases could each have 10 handsets registered.
> In turn, each handset could register with 10 base
> stations. They were really very good for that.
>
> I've only ever seen this sort of ability with proprietory
> DECT cellstations & handsets on telephone systems.[/color]

You can register a modern DECT handset with more than one base station.
What you *can't* do, which is the crux of my argument, is get that handset
to ring for incoming calls to more than one base station; it will only
ring for the one it is currently linked to for outgoing calls. If I want
to answer a call that is ringing a base that my handset is not currently
using, (assuming I can hear it ringing at all) I have to manually switch
to it, by which time (a) the caller has gone or (b) the voicemail has
kicked in..

Rabbit phones would ring for calls on any base station, whether it was
selected for calls or not. You still had to manually switch bases to make
outgoing calls, but for incoming it didn't matter.

Ivor

"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:48229872.u6gPh8NV5F@ale.cx...[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/01/linksys_ships_wip330_europe/[/url]
>
> Why on earth is anyone going to spend the thick end of £300 on a WiFi
> handset? It only does WiFi - not SIP, GSM, 3G or anything else.
>
> As a comparison for £300, one could buy:[/color]

or a "real" cisco 7920, at $625 list....
[url]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/phones/ps379/ps5056/index.html[/url][color=blue]
>
> - three ATAs and three pairs of DECT handsets, or
> - a PDA with WiFi running SIP, Skype and MSN clients simultaneously, or
> - two Siemens C-460IPs, and some GAP DECT handsets to pair with them, or
> - a mobile that does GSM, WiFi and SIP, or
> - a PC running Asterisk
>
> etc. So where is the £300 value in this Linksys WiFi phone?[/color]

The cisco one is more of a business feature phone - they always seem to cost
a fair bit more.

also i suspect you are missing a big chunk of the real system costs - you
need lots of access points to make sure you get a reasonable voice quality
(or a low density of phones per AP), and ideally APs that support 802.11
(something) for QoS........

FWIW they are really nice phones.[color=blue]
>
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
> 08:03:46 up 7 days, 16:08, 3 users, load average: 0.32, 0.19, 0.12
> This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
>[/color]
--
Regards

[email]stephen_hope@xyzworld.com[/email] - replace xyz with ntl