Provisioning Internal and External (STUN) phone for the same

Discussion in '3CX Phone System - General' started by egiblockDM, May 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. egiblockDM

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello,

    We are setting up phones for some users here and they'll have both a Internal phone and Home Office phone (External STUN) setup for their same extension. I've noticed that if I set up the user internal and then switch the MAC address in the config, it deletes the old mac config file and creates a new one. Is there a better way to provision the home phones?

    currently i am creating a copy of the internal mac config file and then renaming it back to the original file after it is deleted from the 3cx provisioning directory when the mac in the system is changed..

    thoughts, suggestions, help !

    thanks
     
  2. leejor

    leejor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,360
    Likes Received:
    226
    Re: Provisioning Internal and External (STUN) phone for the

    While auto config works well for the "basic" stuff, it doesn't seem to handle things like this, well. If the set allows, you may want to auto config, as an internal set,then disable auto config on the set, then manually make any changes required for the set to work remotely (SIP server address). The last couple versions of 3CX have been able to deal with remote sets that do not have STUN enabled (for the most part).
     
  3. ian.watts

    ian.watts Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Provisioning Internal and External (STUN) phone for the

    Indeed, I tend to go manual with the remotes.. there are too many variables I cannot solve for at the time.. like a SIP-ALG in between, different NAT cones, etc.

    On Cisco, I just start with a resync URI with the original's MAC.. then once provisioned I update the config for remote extension use.

    Others may suggest using a different extension for those remote handsets.. seems a bit overkill to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.