I have 12 Sangoma s305 phones. I can not find the firmware for my model on the Sangoma website. I have had multiple issues with the phone changing their MAC address and not connecting to the PBX. I am starting over so I reinstalled the PBX and factory reset the phones and now I have a screensaver on the phones that says Htek. Where can I get the latest Sangoma firmware for the s305?
Firmware is inside EPM in the firmware management section. What do you mean phone changing MAC daily. That doesnt make sense. The MAC is stored in storage on the phone that is not able to be changed.
You can also grab the firmware from our wiki here. I just updated it for the .57 release and included the 305. https://wiki.freepbx.org/display/PHON/Phone+Firmware+Release+Notes
The phone that currently has the issue has a MAC address of 005058517fdf (displayed in the menu of the phone and on the label on the back.) but the networking group is telling me that they see MAC address 001fc1000004 on the switch side. Our network requires that a MAC bypass is setup for the phone to access the network. The MAC issue causes the device to not pick up an IP. Doing a MAC Lookup online on the server side MAC returns Hanlong Technology Co.,LTD which seems to make VOIP phones. My theory is that Sangoma rebrands these HTek phones.
I have done some more testing with the phone and discovered that if the phone is connected directly the the Cisco managed switches that provide POE I am unable to get the phones to grab an IP address. If I put a POE injector in between the phone and the switch and power the phone up first then plug it into the switch it will grab an IP address. This leads me to believe that the MAC address (Sangoma one) on the phone is set by the software as part of the boot up process and the Cisco switch is grabbing the MAC address (Hanlong Tech one) before it is changed. Since the setup uses MAC bypass to allow the phone on the network it is grabbing the wrong MAC address and blocking the connection.
I was able to get the phone to connect by removing any security on the port. The networking group view this as a security risk and only a temporary workaround. Any ideas on how to fix the issue?