VoIP One-way Audio and Voice drops
-
@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.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
-
@coliver said:
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
The ER-Pro does NOT have a switch chip. All ports are routed. It is not designed to act as a switch. Those devices were designed for WISPs in general, though of course anyone can use them.
I have no idea what max throughput would be on a set of bridged interfaces on an ER-Pro 8. It would be higher than an ERL because there is much better processor in it.
-
@coliver said:
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
Best to get a small L3 switch, if that is what you need. Why do you need an L3 switch?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
The ER-Pro does NOT have a switch chip. All ports are routed. It is not designed to act as a switch. Those devices were designed for WISPs in general, though of course anyone can use them.
I have no idea what max throughput would be on a set of bridged interfaces on an ER-Pro 8. It would be higher than an ERL because there is much better processor in it.
I'm looking at the datasheets. That info must be buried somewhere else. Thanks for that info I will have to look at the ERPoE then.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
Best to get a small L3 switch, if that is what you need. Why do you need an L3 switch?
I don't think L3 was really what I meant (mostly because that was what I've it described as in the past by a few Cisco techs). I was looking for a switch aggregator or center to the star topology, instead of doing switch daisy chaining.
-
@coliver said:
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
What I do in locations where I have more than one AP but already have PoE injectors is use the ERL and a $20 gigabit switch.
eth0 - WAN - To ISP device
eth1 - LAN - To main LAN switch
eth2 - WiFi - To $20 dumb switchI plug the access points into the dumb switch and I am done. Any dumb switch will blindly pass the VLAN tagging so everything just works.
This is specifically replacing the scenario you described. If the AP gear can be plugged in to the main switch and appropriate tagging and trunking setup on that, there is no need for something like this.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
Oh, that is some really good information. I was looking to use it specifically in the fashion you describe and make it my "level 3" switch in addition to the router. Which is how I currently use the Meraki.
What I do in locations where I have more than one AP but already have PoE injectors is use the ERL and a $20 gigabit switch.
eth0 - WAN - To ISP device
eth1 - LAN - To main LAN switch
eth2 - WiFi - To $20 dumb switchI plug the access points into the dumb switch and I am done. Any dumb switch will blindly pass the VLAN tagging so everything just works.
This is specifically replacing the scenario you described. If the AP gear can be plugged in to the main switch and appropriate tagging and trunking setup on that, there is no need for something like this.
This would replace the Meraki firewall and manage all WAN traffic coming to/from our LAN.
-
In my other thread, this is a similar situation that I am a looking to.
I was/am considering the EdgeRouter-8, though the 5 port would probably do me just fine (assuming no one here has had any issues with VOIP through the 5 port).
-
@Dashrender said:
In my other thread, this is a similar situation that I am a looking to.
I was/am considering the EdgeRouter-8, though the 5 port would probably do me just fine (assuming no one here has had any issues with VOIP through the 5 port).
The only caution on the ER-8 is to be aware that none of the 8 ports are hardware switched.
Because of that, I have never bought one as I never want to give up some throughput by bridging a few interfaces.
The ER PoE is a great choice when you just need a couple switch ports on the router for convenience.
Otherwise, the router is really not the place to want switched ports in the first place.
-
Replaced the firewall. Still seeing the same issues we were before.
-
@coliver said:
Replaced the firewall. Still seeing the same issues we were before.
This needs qualified.
Replaced how? Swapped a Meraki unit? that woudl imply same programming thus potentially the same issue. Completely different hardware? Then it comes to verifying the new configuration.
