[cisco-voip] Call Routing Problems

[Jason Aarons (US)]

To add to this back in the 4.1.3 days I had several site with 2 7940s
using G711 nothing less than a T1 with Location Bandwidth set to 786K
that would get Not Enough Bandwidth.  I'm sure it was a bug as re-sync
would fix it for awhile.  I finally quit using the Locations bandwidth
unless we were really overwhelming the link, then changed the message to
Try Later or something else like Not Enough Lines or Contact Helpdesk.

 

To this day I still don't trust it as I can't figure out Cisco math
sometimes.

 

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Huffman, Tim; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call Routing Problems

 

'Not enough bandwidth' only is sent to a device when the 'location'
bandwidth is overrun.  Check your location bandwidth settings (System ->
Locations).

 

 

 

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Huffman, Tim
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 1:47 PM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Call Routing Problems

 

All,

 

We have a Subscriber and Publisher at our main location.  We have
another subscriber at one of our remote office that is associated with
the publisher at the main location.

 

I made a route pattern on our Publisher that would allow for some of the
calls that are incoming at our main site's T1s, to go outbound our
remote sites' T1s so we can free up some channels on our T1s at the main
site.  Once I made this change, it worked with no issues until we hit a
certain call volume (not sure how many).  Once it went haywire phones at
our remote location started saying "not enough bandwidth."  It also
caused issues trying to call inter-office from our main location to our
remote location.  How would I tell what the limitation is of
simultaneous calls from our main location to our remote location?

 

I did already confirm that we did not saturate our WAN connection
between the two sites.

 

Thanks,

 

Tim Huffman

 

________________________________

Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee,
you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in
error and that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. 




-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20100104/7f7e3604/attachment.html>