Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

More than 1 extension rings when called

Status
Not open for further replies.

darthvader167

Free User
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone.
This issue makes absolutely no sense...
I'm running the latest version of 3CX, in Google Cloud. I have 8+ phones, all on STUN and in multiple locations.

I am only experiencing the issue on the Grandstream GRP-2614 and GRP-2616 phones that I have. I have many other old, unsupported Talkswitch and Grandstream phones as well, which are manually provisioned and work absolutely fine (GXP2000, TS-350i, 480i, 9133i, 9112i).
The issue is that when I call ext. 100, which is a GRP-2616, ext. 113 rings at the same time. This makes no sense! I don't experience this on any other phones. It's 100% not a problem with ring groups/call forward/sim ring... I haven't configured any of those options for these extensions. What is also disturbing is that when I call ext. 100, it rings on 113 at the same time and if no one answers, both phones display a missed call from the same caller, as if they were both called by the same person at the same time.
I have tried everything, and I can't get to the bottom of this. I don't think it's a network problem, as I have 5 other phones on the network that work absolutely fine. I'm experiencing this issue only between extensions 100 and 113, which are the new GRP series phones that I recently purchased. The GRP phones are running the latest firmware and are provisioned with 3CX (no custom templates, provisioning was done as per 3CX instructions).
This is very, very bad, as I can't have one employee's phone ringing at the same time as anothers for no reason.
Please let me know if you are experiencing the same issue.
What can I do?
Thanks!
 
are extension 100 and 113 at the same location ?

When you say you have configured them as per 3CX info, have you given each phone a different sip / rtp ports and setup portforwarding on the firewall protecting the phones.
 
Last edited:
Hi @darthvader167

You did not say what version the PBX is or what firmware is installed in each phone separately.

Try to unplug the phones, register extensions 100 and 113 on one of our clients, and call 100 again from some other extension.

If 113 rings, forget the phones for now and go look at the settings of Extension 100 only.
Does it have a mobile number defined?
Does it have ring my mobile simultaneously enabled under its current status?

If 113 does not ring when using only the clients, then let us know and we can advise accorrdingly.

PS: Always start from here so we can have a better idea of what we are dealing with
https://www.3cx.com/community/threads/information-to-provide-when-requesting-help.67558/
 
100 and 113 are at the same location. My router is set up as uPnP. I've had many other phones (different old models) at that network for a long time. Just the new Grandstream phones are causing issues.
I'm running the latest version of 3CX, 16.0.611 with a PRO license. Phones have the latest unified firmware, 1.0.3.6.
I've tried registering 100 on other extensions, and no problems are experienced.
No extension in my system has a mobile number defined. No simultaneous ring.
No phone rings when using just 3CX clients.
 
Ok understood.

Please be aware that uPnP is not supported. It may be convenient, but you have to make sure they are set up as per our recommendations if you want them work reliably.

This means that in the extension provisioning settings, each one must have a unique SIP port, and a unique RTP range that does not overlap with the other phone at the same site.

Then, you must forward those ports on the router that is in front of the phone for both the SIP ports, and the RTP range of each phone.

Alternatively, if you have more than just a couple of phones you can use a 3CX SBC and not need to assign any unique ports or forwardings and saves you from doing and maintaining that extra work. In addition, it provides encryption for both SIP+RTP and also allows calls between extensions to remain local so the audio does not have to travel across the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leejor
Wow. Too complicated for such expensive licensing fees.
My company ended up just buying a Grandstream UCM6202. Works a lot better and has a ton of extra features. You can't expect installers to know every port that they need to open/assign/forward. I thought that 3CX would be a 'plug and play' experience, but I was obviously wrong. Very unstable and many issues. Sorry, but that's the truth.
 
"You can't expect installers to know every port that they need to open/assign/forward. "

Yes, that is exactly what you need to know, if you choose to use STUN. It's all documented.
Using STUN is not the correct choice, when you have multiple extensions, at a location remote to the server unless you understand the port issue, and, are prepared to deal with it. You'd be much better off making use of an inexpensive Raspberry Pi 3CX SBC. That is why they were developed.
 
Last edited:
I can't use STUN for less than 10 phones on the same network? What a joke.
Besides, it's not realistic for me to have to rely on some Raspberry Pi device to keep my phones running.
My company has finished migrating to a Grandstream UCM6202 this morning. 3CX is history for us.
Thanks everyone for your input!
 
You can use STUN if you understand how it works, and the limitations, when you choose to put the 3CX server in the cloud.. You are under the same network rules and restrictions as everyone else. You can't snap your fingers and have everything magically work the way you want. In the end, we all choose to do, what works best , for us.
 
Last edited:
Stun works great when implemented properly. A Pi SBC, or if you really want to, a Windows Server with some redundancy running the Windows SBC.
Don't knock the product just because you do not want to set it up as directed.

I've used a UCM as well with a lot of problems - in a very minimal setup. 3cx is by far a superior product and easier to setup and maintain.
 
HI @darthvader167

Your reaction is quite incomprehensible, even absurd, either it is voluntary on your part, or you do not make the slightest effort to do what it takes.
3CX provides documents for the configuration of the phones in different modes of use, if you complain that 3CX does not work properly and that you do not respect in any way the rules of the requested parameter setting, then I think that you are in bad faith by thinking that the system should function without worries.
As already said above, putting a simple Raspberry PI on your LAN would solve all your problems without thinking about it and leave you with the possibility of adding new extensions very easily. My feeling is you prefer dead ends.
 
3CX is not superior to the UCM in any way. In 3CX there are no voicemail groups, you can't assign more than 1 sip account per provisioned phone, etc. UCM was 100 times easier to set up. Also, to have time routing based on time of day in 3CX you need some sort of call flow designer program that you can only make use of with a $300+ a year PRO license.
You were saying that I need to do the port forwarding manually; what if I want to give a phone to a remote worker? I can't be telling them what ports to map or anything like that. Heck, most of my employees don't even know what a port is or they forgot their router password. If I have to pay so much for a system that is unreliable and expensive, I won't pay for it. I had so many occasions with 3CX that calls just randomly didn't have audio (even with softphone apps). The UCM also made use of my video doorphone intercom, as 3CX didn't have support for the H.264 video codec, but when I added the doorphone to my UCM, I had great video quality from the intercom right in my softphone app. I would like to snap my fingers and have everything work as I want, and that's what the UCM gave me with zero-config.
Anyways, I will stop ranting, and I wish everyone to have a great day.
Thank you for your responses!
How do I close a thread? Maybe one of you could do it.
 
My answer was not to say 3CX is superior to other products, you're right certain basic features may be missing or need improvments on 3CX.
I don't know UCM, but if you are pleased with this system why complaining about 3CX? stay happy with UCM.

3CX Staff will close the thread, no one else can do this.
 
As the OP discovered when he attempting to implement the 3CX, and I discovered during my testing and development of our offerings, the 3CX has non-typical requirements. His position is not "absurd" it is perfectly in line with what is supported by competing systems. I've altered our offerings to accommodated the 3CX limitations but I can understand someone, who is working on a single system, just going with something else. Those of you who are so blinded by 3CX are not doing them a service and will ultimately damage them by leaving them blind to a significant problem that has long since been solved by others. They will eventually fix the issue or die, I'm hoping they will fix it. I have tied my horse to their cart, but that doesn't mean I'm drinking the kool-aid.
 
I'm not blind and most using 3CX are not, just see IDEAS forum, some of the threads are open more than 3 or 4 years hoping for 3CX DEV.
 
leejor said:
"You can't expect installers to know every port that they need to open/assign/forward. "

Yes, that is exactly what you need to know, if you choose to use STUN. It's all documented.
Using STUN is not the correct choice, when you have multiple extensions, at a location remote to the server unless you understand the port issue, and, are prepared to deal with it. You'd be much better off making use of an inexpensive Raspberry Pi 3CX SBC. That is why they were developed.
Click to expand...
+leejor, for your information, if this was documented, I wouldn't need to post on the forums to resolve the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnS_3CX and NicholasP_3CX
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,952
Messages
589,894
Members
164,844
Latest member
abctel2
3CX Logo Footer Copyright © Sitemap Privacy
Top Bottom