[cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.

Wed Jul 28 04:36:22 EDT 2004

Wes,

   Yes there are active ports. We are having plenty of weird stuff with VLANs right now though. Lots of systems can establish connectivity to the LAN although thier VLAN is up and other systems on thier VLAN can get to the gateway and through it. Do you have any experience with Cisco 16 Port switching module for 3600 and 3700 series routers. We have one in the VLAN serving as the gateway to two of the VLANs but not participating in the VLAN domain. I wish I could give you more details of the network but, I can give you to much information on the topology. What I can say is we a couple of switched champus LAN achitechures containing over 100 switches. We also have ATM backbone in other areas and a routed backbone. Well, my team recently connected to the switched network. We have some private VLANs that need not be put on the VTP Domain. So, we did not place our selves in the domain and are using VTP Transparent on our switches. Since joining the switched network we have had s
ome flaky things like differents VLAN running as the native VLANs on switches to establish interswitch connectivity. We still have connectivity issues but, for the most part they are off our Router Switching Module (NM-ESW-16).

Peter

V/R,
PETER CASANAVE
SSG, USA
BBN Platoon Sergeant

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
Date: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:22 am
Subject: RE: RE: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.

> Is any port up and active in this vlan?
> 
> /Wes
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peter.casanave at us.army.mil [peter.casanave at us.army.mil]
> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:49 PM
> > To: Wes Sisk
> > Subject: Re: RE: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
> > 
> > 
> > Wes,
> > 
> >    Have you ever seen a 3550 that wouldn't take it's vlans out 
> of 
> > admin down even though it is activated in the vlan database and 
> > you execute no shut on vlan?
> > 
> > V/R,
> > PETER CASANAVE
> > SSG, USA
> > BBN Platoon Sergeant
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com>
> > Date: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:28 am
> > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
> > 
> > > Hi Peter,
> > > 
> > > Matching is done based on calling party number and called 
> party 
> > > number,these are good places to start:
> > > 
> > > 
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk90/technologies_tech_note0
> > 9186a00801
> > > 0ae1c.shtml
> > > 
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk90/technologies_tech_note0
> > 9186a00801
> > > 47524.shtml
> > > 
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk90/technologies_tech_note0
> > 9186a00801
> > > 0fed1.shtml
> > > 
> > > /Wes
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > > [cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > peter.casanave at us.army.mil
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:54 AM
> > > > To: EKNUDSON at houston.rr.com
> > > > Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > >
> > > >    We figured out the problem. It was a software problem in the
> > > > tactical circuit switch. We have patched it and since have 
> it up
> > > > and good. By IDSN I meant the default switch type i.e. 5ess 
> which> > > we are using. We are using ds0-groups on a T1 emulating 
> a 5ess.
> > > > For our pri circuits we emmulate a dms-100.
> > > >    Here is one thing I had a couple of questions about. If you
> > > > are not running MGCP in your voice network and your gateway
> > > > router accesses the T1s by dial-peer instruction, are their any
> > > > commands required for the gateway to access PBX. I my 
> situation I
> > > > have a c3745 with 4 T1s. We have two in use right now and 
> may add
> > > > the other two soon. The two T1s are going to the same PBX. I 
> know> > > MGCP would probably make this work easier but, we are 
> not using
> > > > this at this time. My current dial-peers are identical for both
> > > > T1s. The following is an example of how my dial-peers look now:
> > > >
> > > > dial-peer voice 1 pots
> > > >  destination-pattern .......
> > > >  port 3/0:0
> > > >  foward-digits all
> > > >
> > > > dial-peer voice 2 pots
> > > >  destination-pattern .......
> > > >  port 3/1:0
> > > >  foward-digits all
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that we do not have high call volume at this time
> > > > but, here soon these circuits will be saturated. Will this 
> method> > > work. Is this the best way? And will this load balance 
> at all? I
> > > > know this may be elementary but, we, my Platoon of Soldiers, are
> > > > learning this on the fly out of books. We have no formal
> > > > training. Kevin Knowlen and I who are both members of this
> > > > mailing-list have extensive router experience but not much with
> > > > voice. Thank you all for your time.
> > > >
> > > > V/R,
> > > > PETER CASANAVE
> > > > SSG, USA
> > > > BBN Platoon Sergeant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: peter.casanave.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 270 bytes
Desc: Card for <peter.casanave at us.army.mil>
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20040728/848a9611/peter.casanave.vcf