Incoming calls on vp-100 fails to answer

I called Cisco tech support, and their response is that they don't see need for h,323 protocol and decided to stop supporting this! All due to security issues.

Y said:
How did you know cisco refuse this ?

WHY !?!?! Sigh...
Click to expand...
 
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.

How did you know cisco refuse this ?

WHY !?!?! Sigh...
Click to expand...

H.323 protocol is just higher level of protocol (Application layer) which router has nothing to do with. Router just pass packets one place to another.

As for why cisco refuse to help? I dont know - maybe Sorenson dont have service contract with cisco?? I am just guessing..
 
Y said:
How did you know cisco refuse this ?

WHY !?!?! Sigh...
Click to expand...

diehardbiker said:
I called Cisco tech support, and their response is that they don't see need for h,323 protocol and decided to stop supporting this! All due to security issues.
Click to expand...

If this was true - how do you explain I am able to use my VP now with Cisco brand?

Don't believe everything you hear from tech support.. Keep in mind, there are some technicians are new to the feild and may lack some real-world experence on this product. I have experenced this level of support before at many different companies. If I am in doubt, I just call back to speak a different tech (hoping for more experenced one) and do online research on that issue.

Sad fact is: more and more companies are hiring people with lack of experences or not training them to keep up with new technologies. I know this for fact, my company is one of them. This is why I am taking class to learn new things at my own time.
 
I have had similiar problem like you described with Cisco branded routers. I gave up and gone back to Dlink. Tell me why? Plus I already contacted directly to Cisco, and they looked down at me as if I mean nothing to them.

Linksys used to have NO problem with VP UNTIL Cisco bought this company and bang! The Linksys router bearing Cisco logo on them quit working. Tell me why? Again go back to what I said, I already called Cisco and they think it is not necessary to have this, WHOA!!!!

BTW, if you truly have Cisco router and have no problem, then why create this thread in the first place?


RichardDeaf said:
If this was true - how do you explain I am able to use my VP now with Cisco brand?

Don't believe everything you hear from tech support.. Keep in mind, there are some technicians are new to the feild and may lack some real-world experence on this product. I have experenced this level of support before at many different companies. If I am in doubt, I just call back to speak a different tech (hoping for more experenced one) and do online research on that issue.

Sad fact is: more and more companies are hiring people with lack of experences or not training them to keep up with new technologies. I know this for fact, my company is one of them. This is why I am taking class to learn new things at my own time.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm, the reason why I ask because
I currently have Linksys cisco BEFCUM10
with
D-Link Ethernet Broadband Router (DI-604)

Seem to be working fine. Scratching my head....
 
diehardbiker said:
I have had similiar problem like you described with Cisco branded routers. I gave up and gone back to Dlink. Tell me why? Plus I already contacted directly to Cisco, and they looked down at me as if I mean nothing to them.

Linksys used to have NO problem with VP UNTIL Cisco bought this company and bang! The Linksys router bearing Cisco logo on them quit working. Tell me why? Again go back to what I said, I already called Cisco and they think it is not necessary to have this, WHOA!!!!

BTW, if you truly have Cisco router and have no problem, then why create this thread in the first place?
Click to expand...

I created this thread is because I was having problem with VP before I learned it was VP's "Public IP" configuration issue.

I have feeling that when Cisco brought out Linksys, they probably overhaul the routing software on linksys router. I bet you a dime that if you try using that linksys in question, try setting them as DMZ then set your VP as "use the current IP" rather than using "use detected public IP". It would work.. Try that I would like to know..

In fact, one of small non-profit org use linksys router and using VP without problem.. They are using WRT54G with firmware v1.00.4. Again, like I said, I dont buy that cisco tech's statement. 99% of time, it is configuration problem.
 
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...

Look like I was mistaken - I looked back in my notes.. It turned out that a maximum distance between any 2 nodes on "repeaters" is about 400 meters.. That is typically 90m each associated with each repeater. It has to do with collision domain. (timing) :doh:
 
Yea, distance is also another factor in limitation. Your right on that one with distance.

RichardDeaf said:
Look like I was mistaken - I looked back in my notes.. It turned out that a maximum distance between any 2 nodes on "repeaters" is about 400 meters.. That is typically 90m each associated with each repeater. It has to do with collision domain. (timing) :doh:
Click to expand...
 
RichardDeaf said:
I have feeling that when Cisco brought out Linksys, they probably overhaul the routing software on linksys router. I bet you a dime that if you try using that linksys in question, try setting them as DMZ then set your VP as "use the current IP" rather than using "use detected public IP". It would work.. Try that I would like to know..
Click to expand...

Nope doesn't work. Linksys WRT54G V.2

In fact, one of small non-profit org use linksys router and using VP without problem.. They are using WRT54G with firmware v1.00.4. Again, like I said, I dont buy that cisco tech's statement. 99% of time, it is configuration problem.
Click to expand...


It isn't in this case. The WRT54G has at least 5 different versions. Which version are they using? If it is V.1 I believe it came out prior to Cisco buying Linksys. My v.2 will not work with VP, no matter what I set the settings to. Yes, I tried your suggested trick. It won't even connect al all without the detected (or ISP) IP address.

You are saying that your VP is set to use 192.168.1.125 rather than the detected IP address. The only way that works is if you are calling a VP on the same network. Please explain how your VP magically connects to the internet when it is set not to?
 
dkf747 said:
Nope doesn't work. Linksys WRT54G V.2
It isn't in this case. The WRT54G has at least 5 different versions. Which version are they using? If it is V.1 I believe it came out prior to Cisco buying Linksys. My v.2 will not work with VP, no matter what I set the settings to. Yes, I tried your suggested trick. It won't even connect al all without the detected (or ISP) IP address.
Click to expand...

The one I was referring to is 5th generation box..

You are saying that your VP is set to use 192.168.1.125 rather than the detected IP address. The only way that works is if you are calling a VP on the same network. Please explain how your VP magically connects to the internet when it is set not to?
Click to expand...

Correct - but my VP is set to 192.168.1.25. Like I said before, Cisco router is doing different method of NAT routing. I was puzzled as you were.. My theory is that once the tunneling is created between VP and router, it just know where it goes to, in this case outside world. I am going to ask my prof wednesday night about this.
 
Well, I wanted to say this... In the last 2 years with VP experience, and several years experience with networking. Nobody have came up a solution that would have VP work with EVERY routers! This haven't happened yet! NOT EVEN one person stepped in and say, here is the solution to every problem. All I hear is arugument, that is all! Bottom line is, I know that since Dlink is the "flagship" for VP, and they know indepth about VP and its requirement in associate with routers and networking. So, therefore it is best bet that Dlink products would work well with VP.

So, my point is. Don't step in and expect somebody giving you instant answer on how to make VP work with just any routers! This is only a dream that it would ever happen.

Of course, someday, somebody would find a solution to this problems with compatiblity in association with videostreaming. Gotta to wait til then!
 
That "192.168.0.125 is only suggestive IP address to set up to avoid problems that may come to rise. You could choose any IP address AS LONG AS you set your DMZ setting matching to that you want on your VP. The reason behind with suggestive IP address on VP is because it is least likely that any one of PC would take over the same IP address. Normally any PC would be assigned as 192.168.0.100, 192.168.0.101, and so forth, and VP happens to fall on the 26th causing the chance to be low of having one of PC assigned mistakenly with 192.168.0.125.

There is one exception to this recommendation is that *IF* you request seperate "Public" IP address from your ISP in technical world, we call this IP as "WAN", and you have hooked VP directly to switch > cablemodem (or DSL modem). Then you need to make sure that your VP is set on DHCP, No firewall setting needed because it didn't go though router; again that is *IF* your ISP assigned you IP address by DHCP.

To tell you this, I find myself that VP works the best when connects directly to ISP without router fuss! I have three VP here, and two of them tied up with two routers, and one of them connects directly to ISP and I see the difference!
RichardDeaf said:
The one I was referring to is 5th generation box..



Correct - but my VP is set to 192.168.1.25. Like I said before, Cisco router is doing different method of NAT routing. I was puzzled as you were.. My theory is that once the tunneling is created between VP and router, it just know where it goes to, in this case outside world. I am going to ask my prof wednesday night about this.
Click to expand...
 
RichardDeaf ... apparently your VP has shown phone rings now? If it does, how did you fix it. Care to explain please. Thanks
 
Sunshine1 said:
RichardDeaf ... apparently your VP has shown phone rings now? If it does, how did you fix it. Care to explain please. Thanks
Click to expand...

If you go to Setting -> Network -> Public IP menu, by default, it should set to "Use detected public IP address", but apprently this router I am using automatically routes the private IP into Public IP for VP. So I must set my VP to "Use current IP address" option in order to work with my router.

Richard
 
diehardbiker said:
Well, I wanted to say this... In the last 2 years with VP experience, and several years experience with networking. Nobody have came up a solution that would have VP work with EVERY routers! This haven't happened yet! NOT EVEN one person stepped in and say, here is the solution to every problem. All I hear is arugument, that is all! Bottom line is, I know that since Dlink is the "flagship" for VP, and they know indepth about VP and its requirement in associate with routers and networking. So, therefore it is best bet that Dlink products would work well with VP.

So, my point is. Don't step in and expect somebody giving you instant answer on how to make VP work with just any routers! This is only a dream that it would ever happen.

Of course, someday, somebody would find a solution to this problems with compatiblity in association with videostreaming. Gotta to wait til then!
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I post this thread to see if anyone had this problem and maybe someone would have solution to the problem.. I never "expected" anyone to give me instant answer.. After all, this is not a "support" forum but I knew there are people like you are knowledgeable in networking and VP that might know the answer or have suggestion to the problem.

Since there are so many brands and software designs, i doubt there will ever been "one" solution to the problem. But it would be nice. :)
 
diehardbiker said:
That "192.168.0.125 is only suggestive IP address to set up to avoid problems that may come to rise. You could choose any IP address AS LONG AS you set your DMZ setting matching to that you want on your VP. The reason behind with suggestive IP address on VP is because it is least likely that any one of PC would take over the same IP address. Normally any PC would be assigned as 192.168.0.100, 192.168.0.101, and so forth, and VP happens to fall on the 26th causing the chance to be low of having one of PC assigned mistakenly with 192.168.0.125.
Click to expand...

Right.. but I am not using DMZ, just forwarding one port to VP which is TCP 1720.. The 15328-15333 (TCP/UDP) forwarding is not needed to configured on router as it automatically set up tunnelling for it. That one thing I liked about. Other routers would cause black video at other party, not mine.

I have my router DHCP pool of 192.168.1.101-254 and Manual DHCP pool of 1-100 so, VP is automatically assigned to .25.

There is one exception to this recommendation is that *IF* you request seperate "Public" IP address from your ISP in technical world, we call this IP as "WAN", and you have hooked VP directly to switch > cablemodem (or DSL modem). Then you need to make sure that your VP is set on DHCP, No firewall setting needed because it didn't go though router; again that is *IF* your ISP assigned you IP address by DHCP.

To tell you this, I find myself that VP works the best when connects directly to ISP without router fuss! I have three VP here, and two of them tied up with two routers, and one of them connects directly to ISP and I see the difference!
Click to expand...

Yeah straight from cable/DSL modem to VP is most ideal setting but 2nd IP address cost extra.. I wouldn't be suprised once everyone go IPV6, we can have as many we want for no or low cost and we wouldnt need NAT anymore.


I am curious - what line of work do you do for living? I am a switch technician for ALLTEL Network Operations (Wireless Carrier Switch).
 
RichardDeaf said:
If you go to Setting -> Network -> Public IP menu, by default, it should set to "Use detected public IP address", but apprently this router I am using automatically routes the private IP into Public IP for VP. So I must set my VP to "Use current IP address" option in order to work with my router.

Richard
Click to expand...

Yea I already tried and it doesn't work. Oh well ... but thanks
 
Sunshine1 said:
Yea I already tried and it doesn't work. Oh well ... but thanks
Click to expand...

Have you try to look at your router and see if DHCP and then look at the bottom to see if VP's MAC show there like unknow; MAC# show the different. If yes.. Turn your VP automatic IP ADDRESS on then set up on router STATIC set for MAC# from VP. Be sure DMZ is disable.. if it not work try enable and 192.168.0.125, let us know if that work.:fingersx:
 
Back
Top