Send cisco-voip mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-voip digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. QOS policy for head end router (Dana Tong)
2. VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
([email protected])
3. vg224 sanity check (Ed Leatherman)
4. Re: vg224 sanity check (Scott Voll)
5. Re: QOS policy for head end router (Ed Leatherman)
6. Re: vg224 sanity check (Erick Wellnitz)
7. Re: vg224 sanity check (Carlo Calabrese)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:08:45 +0000
From: Dana Tong <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] QOS policy for head end router
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all,
What would be the capacity of a 2951 performing per site shaping,
classification, marking,and prioritization?
I had configured A triple nested policy-map but I don't think the 2951 can cut
it. I imagine it might be ok for half a dozen sites.
But this instance has 50 sites, and a massive over subscription at the HQ. With
the 48 or so sites, the output from the show policy-map was over 5000 lines.
Is there a better way of doing this? Or is the router just not have enough
grunt? SVTI and DVTI are not an option as a service provider manages the branch
routers.
Regards,
Dana Tong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/66d735f4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:32 +0000
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] VWIC2 and VWIC3 E1 PRI's on the same router?
Message-ID:
<f8e0cc3253a10c4cb137f12f568dad061b4709e...@gblonz-pmsgem02.emrsn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
I'm almost certain this would work, but if someone has actual experience, would
love your feedback:
We have some gateways with 2 VWIC3-2MFT-E1/T1 cards and plenty of PVDMs
(PVDM3-256)
Now we want to upgrade to more PRI trunks and we have a lot of spare
VWIC2-2MFT-E1/T1 cards available.
Will this work? Can VWIC3 and VWIC2 cards coexist in the same chassis, running
off the same PVDM3 module?
Thanks,
Zoltan Kelemen
ETS & Information Security
Implementation Engineering
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
w: +40 374 132356
m: +40 757 039093
[cid:[email protected]]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/e5e72be9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1916 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/e5e72be9/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:56:37 -0400
From: Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>
To: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID:
<CAFC4dso=n+kk3ghgmffkysyar1rtgzh9np-cfnp4jznt5ny...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Good morning!
I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of
ATA's for analog service to fax machines etc.
IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer send
faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA are
ok oddly enough.
Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on
the VG224 are having the same issue.
To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
(which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their
CUCM.
My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on the
gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just
getting switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion
happening or DSP's engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any
conferencing or such going on?
Thanks!
--
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/a02a2039/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:59:15 -0700
From: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
To: Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID:
<CAHgd+38XnS3oHf-CYVf7LBKeKPe8D-tiQFf1gr=f+3lcom5...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ed--
Did any of your Faxes get replaced? Sound like you might have gotten a new
Fax with Super G3 and ECM turned on. YMMV.
Scott
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>wrote:
> Good morning!
>
> I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of
> ATA's for analog service to fax machines etc.
>
> IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer
> send faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA
> are ok oddly enough.
>
> Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on
> the VG224 are having the same issue.
>
> To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
> network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
> reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
> (which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their
> CUCM.
>
> My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on
> the gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just
> getting switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion
> happening or DSP's engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any
> conferencing or such going on?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/d43e84b4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:17:34 -0400
From: Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>
To: Dana Tong <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] QOS policy for head end router
Message-ID:
<CAFC4dsqUx_a74dqiwQFtHGbA7m=j4bqgs2+ia+mms2pmtva...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Dana,
I don't have an answer although it sounds interesting. You might want to
pose the question to the cisco-nsp mailing list also if you haven't already:
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Dana Tong <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What would be the capacity of a 2951 performing per site shaping,
> classification, marking,and prioritization?
>
> I had configured A triple nested policy-map but I don't think the 2951 can
> cut it. I imagine it might be ok for half a dozen sites.
> But this instance has 50 sites, and a massive over subscription at the HQ.
> With the 48 or so sites, the output from the show policy-map was over 5000
> lines.
>
> Is there a better way of doing this? Or is the router just not have enough
> grunt? SVTI and DVTI are not an option as a service provider manages the
> branch routers.
>
> Regards,
> Dana Tong.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
--
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/54e57c8d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:57 -0500
From: Erick Wellnitz <[email protected]>
To: Scott Voll <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID:
<CAK0wOsBHRG26HuW_CPrp5GGoTf7sRiCn8Ru-=h7ulwrkpou...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Are you able to capture traffic from the ethernet port of the VG224 to make
sure RTP traffic is not leaving the 224 for some reason? It would also
show if SCCP is working to the CUCM. I have seen issues with the 202 and
204 where the device shows registered but the signaling traffic was not
being passed.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Scott Voll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed--
>
> Did any of your Faxes get replaced? Sound like you might have gotten a
> new Fax with Super G3 and ECM turned on. YMMV.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ed Leatherman <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Good morning!
>>
>> I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of
>> ATA's for analog service to fax machines etc.
>>
>> IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer
>> send faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA
>> are ok oddly enough.
>>
>> Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices
>> on the VG224 are having the same issue.
>>
>> To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI
>> or network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are
>> just reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to
>> gateway (which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on
>> their CUCM.
>>
>> My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on
>> the gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just
>> getting switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion
>> happening or DSP's engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any
>> conferencing or such going on?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Ed Leatherman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/2e34bd33/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:54:41 -0700
From: "Carlo Calabrese" <[email protected]>
To: "'Ed Leatherman'" <[email protected]>, "'Cisco VOIP'"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Message-ID: <00cc01ce684e$51aea1a0$f50be4e0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Can you check your mgcp config. Do you have
Mgcp default-package fxr-package
This will cause problems with faxes training up.
Carlo
From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed
Leatherman
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:57 AM
To: Cisco VOIP
Subject: [cisco-voip] vg224 sanity check
Good morning!
I have a remote campus with 1 VG224 (SCCP controlled) and a handful of ATA's
for analog service to fax machines etc.
IT staff on-site is complaining now that faxes on the VG can no longer send
faxes (they fail usually during the first page), whereas faxes via ATA are ok
oddly enough.
Kicker to me is they've also stated that even faxes between two devices on the
VG224 are having the same issue.
To me this along with the ATA's actually working OK seems to make a PRI or
network issue less likely although not ruling it out in case they are just
reporting things wrong to me. They also say no changes were made to gateway
(which I believe cause they prob don't have the login for it) or on their CUCM.
My question though for anyone familiar with these is, if two devices on the
gateway are talking to each other via FXS ports, is this signal just getting
switched natively on the gateway? Is any signal conversion happening or DSP's
engaged at this point, assuming there aren't any conferencing or such going on?
Thanks!
--
Ed Leatherman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130613/1ce97742/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
------------------------------
End of cisco-voip Digest, Vol 116, Issue 12
*******************************************
