Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread David Stahl
@lists.digium.com Subject: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? The first model to come up for me

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread thufir
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:54 +, Lukasz Sokol wrote: No, ethernet switch works at lower / physical / MAC layer, NAT is 'above' that; so as long as everything is OK with your TCP/IP settings everywhere, a switch is entirely transparent to TCP/IP (or generally, when it's encapsulated into

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread Lukasz Sokol
On 22/03/15 03:03, thufir wrote: On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:33:13 -0500, Brian Franklin wrote: If your phones support PoE, I have had huge success with Zyxel: http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread Kevin Larsen
so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning addresses. Switches have a MAC table that keeps track of which MAC addresses are on which ports. That's how they decide where to route packets.

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread Steve Edwards
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, thufir wrote: so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning addresses. The 'endpoint' (pc, softphone, mobile, desk set, etc.) 'finds' the server's IP address when: ) You configure

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-23 Thread Lukasz Sokol
On 23/03/15 16:37, thufir wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:54 +, Lukasz Sokol wrote: No, ethernet switch works at lower / physical / MAC layer, NAT is 'above' that; so as long as everything is OK with your TCP/IP settings everywhere, a switch is entirely transparent to TCP/IP (or

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-21 Thread thufir
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:33:13 -0500, Brian Franklin wrote: If your phones support PoE, I have had huge success with Zyxel: http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00 5GRETMM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8qid=1426296572sr=8-3keywords=zyxel+poe If you want to go even

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-03-13 Thread Brian Franklin
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:58 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-25 Thread A J Stiles
On Wednesday 25 Feb 2015, Thufir wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? Any port with

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-25 Thread Steve Edwards
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, A J Stiles wrote: The limiting factor with a switch carrying IP telephony traffic is not bandwidth, but routing table entries; and even cheap switches nowadays will usually take 1024 entries, if not 4096. Are you referring to the MAC CAM table? Saying 'routing table' and

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-25 Thread Jeff LaCoursiere
On 02/25/2015 09:28 AM, Steve Edwards wrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, A J Stiles wrote: The limiting factor with a switch carrying IP telephony traffic is not bandwidth, but routing table entries; and even cheap switches nowadays will usually take 1024 entries, if not 4096. Are you referring to

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-25 Thread Bertrand LUPART - Linkeo.com
Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? Small office, about five agents. Had to run some small offices with SIP hardphones and basic switches. Unless

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-24 Thread Harry McGregor
On 02/24/2015 09:30 PM, Thufir wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-24 Thread Thufir
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-M4100-D10-POE-Ethernet-Managed/dp/

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-23 Thread Bertrand LUPART - Linkeo.com
Hello, Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is:

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-23 Thread thufir
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. thanks for the recomendations :) -Thufir -- _ --

Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches

2015-02-20 Thread Harry McGregor
Hi, For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports