VoIP One-way Audio and Voice drops
-
I hope @coliver doesn't mind me asking a few VOIP questions here considering his issues.
@scottalanmiller mentioned STUN servers. In the case of Coliver where he only has internal phones, is the STUN server provided by his SIP provider? or does Coliver need to set one up himself?
If Coliver wanted to have phones outside of the network, would Coliver have to set a STUN server up himself? Am I correct that is seems that a STUN server sorta acts like a reverse proxy for SIP?
-
@Dashrender said:
I hope @coliver doesn't mind me asking a few VOIP questions here considering his issues.
@scottalanmiller mentioned STUN servers. In the case of Coliver where he only has internal phones, is the STUN server provided by his SIP provider? or does Coliver need to set one up himself?
If Coliver wanted to have phones outside of the network, would Coliver have to set a STUN server up himself? Am I correct that is seems that a STUN server sorta acts like a reverse proxy for SIP?
Nope, no problems I was wondering the same thing myself.
-
Just got a report that users who use our Network Extender are also having the same issues that our "landline" users do.
The network extender, from my understanding, is basically a VoIP gateway. Which tells me I can rule out both the PBX and the SIP Trunk if a different version of VoIP is also having issues.
-
@Dashrender said:
I hope @coliver doesn't mind me asking a few VOIP questions here considering his issues.
@scottalanmiller mentioned STUN servers. In the case of Coliver where he only has internal phones, is the STUN server provided by his SIP provider? or does Coliver need to set one up himself?
There is no STUN server in this scenario. STUN is for devices to PBX, not SIP trunks.
If Coliver wanted to have phones outside of the network, would Coliver have to set a STUN server up himself? Am I correct that is seems that a STUN server sorta acts like a reverse proxy for SIP?
You are not required to setup a STUN server for outside phones, but it can smooth out problems when dealing with end users behind gear that may or may not play nice. For @Bundy I use a public STUN server simply because there are only 2-3 extensions that are not inside an OpenVPN tunnel in the first place.
-
@JaredBusch said:
For @Bundy I use a public STUN server simply because there are only 2-3 extensions that are not inside an OpenVPN tunnel in the first place.
Public STUN server? can you give more details?
-
-
I setup a secondary trunk via Vitelity, attached it to the PBX and called in and out. This caused the same issues we were seeing previously. I then attached that trunk to my handset locally, bypassing the PBX, this also caused the same issue we have been seeing.
I've ruled out the PBX and SIP Trunk... all that remains is our firewall/router and our internet connection.
-
Realistically, the Internet connection cannot do this. That means it is the router. Which we pretty much knew all along as this is the exact behaviour of a router having issues.
-
So now is the question. Do I fight with Meraki support (which has been fairly good in the past) or do I just replace the hardware and get something overnight-ed.
-
Replacing the Meraki is a pretty big win even if that proved not to be the issue, somehow. Those things are the most costly devices ever and really don't provide any special value for that price that I've seen. They were going strong for a bit but really tanked and THEN Cisco stepped in and added the Cisco mess to the situation.
You could throw anything, more or less, in for a quick test to know if it is the Meraki or not.
-
I have an older Sonicwall device sitting on the shelf... but I replaced it for a reason, basic garbage to begin with.
-
@coliver said:
I have an older Sonicwall device sitting on the shelf... but I replaced it for a reason, basic garbage to begin with.
Yeah, and SonicWall is famous for not working with VoIP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You could throw anything, more or less, in for a quick test to know if it is the Meraki or not.
@coliver said:
I have an older Sonicwall device sitting on the shelf... but I replaced it for a reason, basic garbage to begin with.
This falls under the less part of more or less..
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You could throw anything, more or less, in for a quick test to know if it is the Meraki or not.
@coliver said:
I have an older Sonicwall device sitting on the shelf... but I replaced it for a reason, basic garbage to begin with.
This falls under the less part of more or less..
Haha, I see what you're saying.
-
Does anyone have experience with the ERPro-8 or any of the EdgeRouter line? I realize it doesn't have the security filtering or web filtering that the Meraki has, but it may be worth it to set that up separately.
-
I have not used any of the Pro line, but it is all the same OS as the Lite and PoE models.
Why are you looking at the Pro? Do you need the ports?
-
@JaredBusch said:
I have not used any of the Pro line, but it is all the same OS as the Lite and PoE models.
Why are you looking at the Pro? Do you need the ports?
No, I am looking at it just as a for instance. Have you worked with the ERPoE one? or the Lite one, they look like they have the same hardware minus the additional PoE ports.
-
@coliver said:
Does anyone have experience with the ERPro-8 or any of the EdgeRouter line? I realize it doesn't have the security filtering or web filtering that the Meraki has, but it may be worth it to set that up separately.
We use the ERL.
-
@coliver said:
No, I am looking at it just as a for instance. Have you worked with the ERPoE one?
They do not have all the same hardware. The additional thing on the PoE is that eth2-4 also have a switch chip. The ERL has no switching chip so if you want two interfaces on the same network for that model, you have to bridge them which in turn reduces max throughput (wakes you down to 300-400 mbps max).
With the PoE you can setup those ports on the switch chip and use them like any other switch. This is how I use it. I have one site with 2 UAP. I have it powering the UAP on the switch ports. eth0 is WAN and eth1 is LAN. sw0 is the WiFi with the eth3 and eth4 being on the switch. eth2 is unused at the moment.
-
@coliver said:
No, I am looking at it just as a for instance. Have you worked with the ERPoE one? or the Lite one, they look like they have the same hardware minus the additional PoE ports.
Specifically, i have both the ERL and the ERPoE in production.
