VoIP Connection Method

Hi Folks, hopefully I've got this followup-to business sorted now.

My only experience of VoIP is using earplugs and a mike via Skype so
connection was made by way of Skype's server.

I see many modern routers have a phone connection and I read somewhere
that VoIP connections can be made by dialing the remote IP address but
I'm not sure if this was manufacturer specific or an option will all
makes; or is via the server the only reliable method.

I appreciate that dynamic addresses can pose a problem though.

Geoff Lane
FU to uk.comp.home-networking

On 15/07/2007 13:42, Geoff Lane wrote:

> I see many modern routers have a phone connection and I read somewhere
> that VoIP connections can be made by dialing the remote IP address but
> I'm not sure if this was manufacturer specific or an option will all
> makes;

Most likely to use SIP (an open standard unlike proprietary SKYPE)

> FU to uk.comp.home-networking

Where I'll be unlikely to see it.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:42:24 +0100, Geoff Lane
<(E-Mail Removed)> mused:

>Hi Folks, hopefully I've got this followup-to business sorted now.
>
>My only experience of VoIP is using earplugs and a mike via Skype so
>connection was made by way of Skype's server.
>
VoIP and Skype is a loose term.

>I see many modern routers have a phone connection and I read somewhere
>that VoIP connections can be made by dialing the remote IP address but
>I'm not sure if this was manufacturer specific or an option will all
>makes; or is via the server the only reliable method.
>
Not a remote IP address, a remote SIP address more likely. Each VoIP
connection has a connection ID that is basically a unique ID, like a
phone number.

>I appreciate that dynamic addresses can pose a problem though.
>
Why's that then? I've never seen a problem with dynamic IP's.

>Geoff Lane
>FU to uk.comp.home-networking

Why? Surely a simple x-post to a couple of groups would have been
better, and maybe uk.telecom.voip would have been a good one to
choose?
--
Regards,
Stuart.

That's correct, you can just dial the IP no., e.g. when using real phone
connected to VoIP router (or via ATA to std router) you just dial
#123*345*78*90# for IP 123.345.78.90 and if there is a SIP device it should
ring.
For more info ask on:
uk.telecom.voip usenet group
Regards,
Martin

Lurch wrote:

>> My only experience of VoIP is using earplugs and a mike via Skype so
>> connection was made by way of Skype's server.
>>
> VoIP and Skype is a loose term.

>> I appreciate that dynamic addresses can pose a problem though.
>>
> Why's that then? I've never seen a problem with dynamic IP's.

Well, when I helped someone out once using VNC, because of their dynamic
address, they had to phone me with it after logging on.

DynDNS gets over this of course.

>> Geoff Lane
>> FU to uk.comp.home-networking
>
> Why? Surely a simple x-post to a couple of groups would have been
> better, and maybe uk.telecom.voip would have been a good one to
> choose?

After a couple of 'protocol' errors using followup-to I thought I'd got
the hand of posting to more than one group; I have to confess that I do
not know what a x-post is :-(

Geoff Lane

Martin² wrote:

> That's correct, you can just dial the IP no., e.g. when using real phone
> connected to VoIP router (or via ATA to std router) you just dial
> #123*345*78*90# for IP 123.345.78.90 and if there is a SIP device it should
> ring.
> For more info ask on:
> uk.telecom.voip usenet group
> Regards,
> Martin

Thanks Martin,

I'll have a look at that group.

Geoff Lane

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:29:43 +0100, Geoff Lane
<(E-Mail Removed)> mused:

>Lurch wrote:
>
>>> My only experience of VoIP is using earplugs and a mike via Skype so
>>> connection was made by way of Skype's server.
>>>
>> VoIP and Skype is a loose term.
>
>>> I appreciate that dynamic addresses can pose a problem though.
>>>
>> Why's that then? I've never seen a problem with dynamic IP's.
>
>Well, when I helped someone out once using VNC, because of their dynamic
>address, they had to phone me with it after logging on.
>
>DynDNS gets over this of course.
>
That's VNC, this is VoIP.

>>> Geoff Lane
>>> FU to uk.comp.home-networking
>>
>> Why? Surely a simple x-post to a couple of groups would have been
>> better, and maybe uk.telecom.voip would have been a good one to
>> choose?
>
>After a couple of 'protocol' errors using followup-to I thought I'd got
>the hand of posting to more than one group; I have to confess that I do
>not know what a x-post is :-(

Why not leave the followup as the same as the groups you are posting
to?
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Lurch said


>>>> FU to uk.comp.home-networking
>>>
>>> Why? Surely a simple x-post to a couple of groups would have been
>>> better, and maybe uk.telecom.voip would have been a good one to
>>> choose?
>>
>>After a couple of 'protocol' errors using followup-to I thought I'd got
>>the hand of posting to more than one group; I have to confess that I do
>>not know what a x-post is :-(
>
> Why not leave the followup as the same as the groups you are posting to?

Just post in one group or if *you* really feel the need two and have the
thread follow in both.

I have seen many of your posts in groups but because of the FU being set
to another group not bothered to reply (as I expect have many others),
there is not any real need to cross post (Xpost), or have the follow up
set to another group ...do you see any others doing it ? Its use is more
for an announcement to cover a range of groups, or for bin posting.

IMO your doing yourself more harm than good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/crospost.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.n...e=source&hl=en

L.

--
Want to help to keep the best free usenet servers running ?
http://www.readfreenews.com