Incoming calls on vp-100 fails to answer

R

RichardDeaf

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
I have been struggling this problem for past few weeks. My VP will not answer the incoming calls. Initially I thought it was a network issue (router) until I tried everything I could to resolve this.

Initial issue:

1. When someone tried to call me - Vp will not ring or anything, just showed "missed calls". This usually mean router is not forwarding the required ports to VP. I have verified all required ports are forwarding to VP's IP

2. I thought it might be corrupted data configuration or something, I issued an factory default command which I went thru all the initial setup steps. I retested the incoming calls - new behavior - It now popping up "Incoming call" with ringing tones. As soon I press answer -- It seems to get "hung" in call setup processing then timed out. Suspecting router issue again - I used crossover network cable from PC to VP100 setting up which bypassed router and switches. Same behavior - hung initial call setup.

3. I brought my known working VP100 from work, i tested same procedure as step #2 (PC to VP), it doing same hung call setup.. I tried 3 different cross over cables without success.. I even tried plugging my cable modem to VP100 directly - it will still hung the incoming call setup.

4. To really rule out the router/switch issue - I had installed EnVision from SorensonVRS and changed my PC to same IP address as VP100 while VP is disconnected from network so I do not have to re-config the router setting. My friend called me as normal like he called my VP100. Behold! EnVision was able to answer incoming call and use it as normal.

I am at loss at this problem and I was wondering if anyone has experenced this odd problem?

Router/Switch in question used:
Cisco 871W using IPAdvanced firmware version 12.4(9)T
Cisco C2950 24 ports switch

Thanks in advance!

Richard
 
RichardDeaf said:
I have been struggling this problem for past few weeks. My VP will not answer the incoming calls. Initially I thought it was a network issue (router) until I tried everything I could to resolve this.

Initial issue:

1. When someone tried to call me - Vp will not ring or anything, just showed "missed calls". This usually mean router is not forwarding the required ports to VP. I have verified all required ports are forwarding to VP's IP

2. I thought it might be corrupted data configuration or something, I issued an factory default command which I went thru all the initial setup steps. I retested the incoming calls - new behavior - It now popping up "Incoming call" with ringing tones. As soon I press answer -- It seems to get "hung" in call setup processing then timed out. Suspecting router issue again - I used crossover network cable from PC to VP100 setting up which bypassed router and switches. Same behavior - hung initial call setup.

3. I brought my known working VP100 from work, i tested same procedure as step #2 (PC to VP), it doing same hung call setup.. I tried 3 different cross over cables without success.. I even tried plugging my cable modem to VP100 directly - it will still hung the incoming call setup.

4. To really rule out the router/switch issue - I had installed EnVision from SorensonVRS and changed my PC to same IP address as VP100 while VP is disconnected from network so I do not have to re-config the router setting. My friend called me as normal like he called my VP100. Behold! EnVision was able to answer incoming call and use it as normal.

I am at loss at this problem and I was wondering if anyone has experenced this odd problem?

Router/Switch in question used:
Cisco 871W using IPAdvanced firmware version 12.4(9)T
Cisco C2950 24 ports switch

Thanks in advance!

Richard
Click to expand...

I dont know whats wrong with your vp.. I have no problems with incoming calls... the light flasher tell me incoming calls so i answer it... no problem... maybe you need to talk to vp vrs techie to find out whats wrong???
 
RichardDeaf said:
I have been struggling this problem for past few weeks. My VP will not answer the incoming calls. Initially I thought it was a network issue (router) until I tried everything I could to resolve this.

Initial issue:

1. When someone tried to call me - Vp will not ring or anything, just showed "missed calls". This usually mean router is not forwarding the required ports to VP. I have verified all required ports are forwarding to VP's IP

2. I thought it might be corrupted data configuration or something, I issued an factory default command which I went thru all the initial setup steps. I retested the incoming calls - new behavior - It now popping up "Incoming call" with ringing tones. As soon I press answer -- It seems to get "hung" in call setup processing then timed out. Suspecting router issue again - I used crossover network cable from PC to VP100 setting up which bypassed router and switches. Same behavior - hung initial call setup.

3. I brought my known working VP100 from work, i tested same procedure as step #2 (PC to VP), it doing same hung call setup.. I tried 3 different cross over cables without success.. I even tried plugging my cable modem to VP100 directly - it will still hung the incoming call setup.

4. To really rule out the router/switch issue - I had installed EnVision from SorensonVRS and changed my PC to same IP address as VP100 while VP is disconnected from network so I do not have to re-config the router setting. My friend called me as normal like he called my VP100. Behold! EnVision was able to answer incoming call and use it as normal.

I am at loss at this problem and I was wondering if anyone has experenced this odd problem?

Router/Switch in question used:
Cisco 871W using IPAdvanced firmware version 12.4(9)T
Cisco C2950 24 ports switch

Thanks in advance!

Richard
Click to expand...

call support 801 287 9403 vp
 
I finally figured out the problem.. Apparently the public IP address must be set same as VP's NATed (current) IP address which is 192.168.1.25.. So I cannot use the Auto-Detect option as it will automatically use ISP's IP address.. It is finally working now, I think it has to do with Cisco processing NAT differently than other cheap brand routers (Dlink, linksys, etc)..

I caught this problem when I couldnt even get either VP to answer when set up VP to VP direct connect without router/switch.. And when I called from VP and PC only one direction of video was streaming..

Anyone else using NAT IP address rather than public IP? I am curious.

Richard
 
Intresting im having this similar problems too UGH... and to top it off my damn router decide to go donkey on me UGH so gonna fix that later... blech
 
I have answer for you! That router is INCOMPATIBLE! Cisco is known to cause that kind of problems. Sorry, best go for Dlink router.
 
Your just confusing yourself. Both are in fact required! To better understand, the IP address assigned by router is called NAT address. WHile the IP address assigned to you by your ISP is called public IP address. Usually the router is the one that uses the IP address assigned by your internet service provider.

RichardDeaf said:
Anyone else using NAT IP address rather than public IP? I am curious.

Richard
Click to expand...
 
I have same problem too. Just as RichardDeaf said: 1. When someone tried to call me - Vp will not ring or anything, just showed "missed calls". And also another problem is that the video display is really messed every time I called someone. So I had to make adjustment on video display (as best as I can) before making phone. I have VP-100 and D-Link 10/100 Fast Ethernet Switch. I got those two devices in Florida with no problem but then I moved to different state where my state don't have VP installer or anyone can help me with. I live out of nowhere. Oh well.
 
If you are using the router called SWITCH forget it. It wont works. My deaf cousin told me that and she had a problem in the past. Finally got a different router so now my other deaf friend having problem with the same router of switch. Never use SWITCH router. Use d-link. It works best.
 
We had problem when we first got it in few months later. Now we had no problem since then. We had it for almost 4 years! So now I am eyeing on VP 200! :whistle: SO I am waiting for Sorenson contact us and replace from VP 100 to VP 200.

Anyway, I hope you got this fixed!
 
All routers have built in switch. The problem is how you set it up. Switch should work, but sometimes a device looks like switch but really hub. If there is hub in there then there is problem. I have switch involved and I have no problem.

horselover61 said:
If you are using the router called SWITCH forget it. It wont works. My deaf cousin told me that and she had a problem in the past. Finally got a different router so now my other deaf friend having problem with the same router of switch. Never use SWITCH router. Use d-link. It works best.
Click to expand...
 
LakeTahoe said:
We had problem when we first got it in few months later. Now we had no problem since then. We had it for almost 4 years! So now I am eyeing on VP 200! :whistle: SO I am waiting for Sorenson contact us and replace from VP 100 to VP 200.

Anyway, I hope you got this fixed!
Click to expand...


In Oregon all deafies have vp-200..now here in California they are getting busy replacing all old vp-100 to 200... i am looking forward...
 
diehardbiker said:
I have answer for you! That router is INCOMPATIBLE! Cisco is known to cause that kind of problems. Sorry, best go for Dlink router.
Click to expand...

Not for this small office commercial-grade router. It is working just fine now.. It just does different way of doing NAT routing. I am still in Cisco CCNA (Sem3&4) class - I havent even started the NAT part which won't start until in few weeks. With this VP problem, i am learning ahead of time. :)

Whole problem is, some router NAT (either using DMZ or selected ports forwarding) may cause problem when the VP is set to "Use detected public ip address" (which use IP of WAN used on router), I must use the "Use current IP address of VP" which is internal NAT IP for that VP. Using that option work fine with dlink, and most brand of home routers. I guess Cisco doesn't work that way.

Ports required to be opened for normal function for VP that I was told by Sorenson Support (via email) was:

Inbound Ports
- Port 1720 (TCP)
- Ports 15328-15333 (TCP & UDP)

Outbound Ports
- Ports 1024-65535 (TCP & UDP)
- Port 21 (FTP)
- Port 389 (LDAP)
- Port 80 (HTTP)
Click to expand...

Obviously, any outgoing ports are automatically created by default setting in Cisco's ACL line. However, I only found out that forwarding the TCP 1720 to VP and Cisco will automatic create any UDP/TCP tunnels on all other incoming port requested by VP (Don't ask me how exactly it does that as I haven't learned in class yet).

Only issue remaining is that when someone try to call me using LDAP method (dialing phone # than using IP) it just failed.. I sent an email to Sorenson support about this.

Richard
 
horselover61 said:
If you are using the router called SWITCH forget it. It wont works. My deaf cousin told me that and she had a problem in the past. Finally got a different router so now my other deaf friend having problem with the same router of switch. Never use SWITCH router. Use d-link. It works best.
Click to expand...

Of course not... I have both... Cable Modem -> Router -> Switch -> VP

:)
 
In case you were thinking something along these lines: Why would Richard get expensive complicated router for his home??

I brought this $500 router as part of learning experence while I am taking Cisco courses at local college. It is part of CCNA certification I am studying for..

It uses all the CLI (Command Line Interface) which let you configure all advance setting via telnet, rather using GUI.. But this Cisco router does have GUI edition but limited for most general settings. The more i use CLI, faster I learn how to troubleshoot, configure, etc. I really love this router, it is the best router I ever owned. Of course that's my opinion.. :)

[Doesnt this forums have spelling checker built in? I hope I got all of my spelling correct!]
 
Well, I know Cisco refused to cooperate with Sorenson on this issue, They decided not to support H.323 protocol which is critical to VP since they bought Linksys.

RichardDeaf said:
Not for this small office commercial-grade router. It is working just fine now.. It just does different way of doing NAT routing. I am still in Cisco CCNA (Sem3&4) class - I havent even started the NAT part which won't start until in few weeks. With this VP problem, i am learning ahead of time. :)

Whole problem is, some router NAT (either using DMZ or selected ports forwarding) may cause problem when the VP is set to "Use detected public ip address" (which use IP of WAN used on router), I must use the "Use current IP address of VP" which is internal NAT IP for that VP. Using that option work fine with dlink, and most brand of home routers. I guess Cisco doesn't work that way.

Ports required to be opened for normal function for VP that I was told by Sorenson Support (via email) was:



Obviously, any outgoing ports are automatically created by default setting in Cisco's ACL line. However, I only found out that forwarding the TCP 1720 to VP and Cisco will automatic create any UDP/TCP tunnels on all other incoming port requested by VP (Don't ask me how exactly it does that as I haven't learned in class yet).

Only issue remaining is that when someone try to call me using LDAP method (dialing phone # than using IP) it just failed.. I sent an email to Sorenson support about this.

Richard
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Well, I know Cisco refused to cooperate with Sorenson on this issue, They decided not to support H.323 protocol which is critical to VP since they bought Linksys.
Click to expand...

How did you know cisco refuse this ?

WHY !?!?! Sigh...
 
diehardbiker said:
exactly! You can have up to 4 switches after router, built in switch router counts as one.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that limitation of 4 switches? I don't believe that is correct. If I recalled in my Sem1/2 class in last spring, in theory, you can have as many you want as long the cable itself doesnt go over 150m. Switch or Hub can be use to extend the length (think as this as repeater). However, lateny may become a problem, i believe.
 
In networking classes I took!

RichardDeaf said:
Where did you hear that limitation of 4 switches? I don't believe that is correct. If I recalled in my Sem1/2 class in last spring, in theory, you can have as many you want as long the cable itself doesnt go over 150m. Switch or Hub can be use to extend the length (think as this as repeater). However, lateny may become a problem, i believe.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top