Besides, there are too many lurkers and not enough contributors...
Jonathan On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uh, no... We need more participation not less... > > > Jonathan > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Gregory Jost (grjost) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Oh. I guess that would be "literally" huh... :) > > > > I only know what I talking about a fraction of the time. Maybe I should > > stay off these forums. > > > > > > > > Greg Jost > > Network Consulting Engineer > > Unified Communications Practice > > Cisco Systems, Inc. > > 214-274-1922 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Jonathan Charles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:13 AM > > To: Gregory Jost (grjost) > > Cc: Jacob Owen; CCIE Voice > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Non-GK ICT from CCM to CCME? > > > > They have a screenshot of the non-GK ICT being created.... > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Gregory Jost (grjost) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think ICT is being used figuratively here (e.g. a trunk between > > > disparate systems), not literally. > > > > > > > > > Greg Jost > > > Network Consulting Engineer > > > Unified Communications Practice > > > Cisco Systems, Inc. > > > 214-274-1922 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan > > > Charles > > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:03 AM > > > To: Jacob Owen > > > Cc: CCIE Voice > > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Non-GK ICT from CCM to CCME? > > > > > > No, I am looking at the solution thingy, and it shows a non-GK > > > controlled ICT trunk... bizarre... I thought this was exclusively for > > > connecting to another CCM cluster... in fact, the SRND says so... > > > > > > Never tried hooking it up to an IPIPGW... > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Jacob Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Jonathan, > > > > The 172.x.10y.1 addresses are the loopbacks for the > > > > devices: > > > > > > > > 172.x.100.1 - HQ Router (x is pod number) > > > > 172.x.101.1 - BR1 Router > > > > 172.x.102.1 - BR2 Router > > > > > > > > I think it's probably an ICT trunk to an H323 > > > > Gatekeeper but I don't have the book handy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Does this work? Looking at solution for 4.9 in the > > > > > workbook, and it > > > > > shows a regular ICT but the IP address, 172.1.100.1 > > > > > doesn't match up > > > > > to anything... I am curious what it is... > > > > > > > > > > BR2's loopback should be 172.X.102.1 not 100.1... > > > > > typo or am I lost? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jacob Owen > > > > CCIE #14063 (R&S, Service Provider), CCVP, CCDP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > ____________ > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > > > > > > > > > >
