[cisco-voip] ATA190

[Anthony Holloway]

Haha, that was way more than I was suggesting.  I was just thinking like,
what if the second vendor was like Selsius, and a tip of the hat.  An
easter egg of sorts.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:46 PM Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:

> As I recall, from the last time I had the occasion to deal with an ATA; I
> think port 1 uses the device’s media access code, and is what ultimately
> gets resolved into the ARP table. From a network perspective, I don’t think
> any thing/scanner could ever “see” a non-cisco device on the network due to
> this method (which is why I believe Cisco may have chose this behavior),
> short of what you’ve done here by manually looking up the ‘spoofed’ OUI
> that is reported by RIS in the CCM GUI.
>
>
>
> I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the ATA uses *software magic* to
> register/communicate port 2 with a shifted/appended MAC address to “play
> nice” with CCM’s unique device name requirement. I could be entirely wrong
> though; I’m basing my statements off of dated experience (I haven’t used an
> ATA in close to a year) and I don’t have an ATA at the ready to test with.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
> *From: *Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:54 PM
> *To: *Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com>
> *Cc: *Jon Fox <jonfoxipt at gmail.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject: *Re: [cisco-voip] ATA190
>
>
>
> Aren't the first few values of a MAC tied to the vendor?  If so, does this
> trick make it look like the second port is a different vendor product?  And
> if so, it would be funny if it was a competitor.
>
>
>
> Ah, but no such luck today.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:ii_jhhx33e01_16388c3b26b144f0]
>
>
>
> Source: https://macvendors.com/
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> The ports are differentiated by the device name. However, the ports
> themselves are registered to CCM and communicate on the network through a
> single network interface on the ATA.
>
> The second port in the ATA will have the first two characters striped from
> the beginning of the MAC address and a “01” appended at the end of the MAC
> address (shown in the device name of the two ports).
>
> Essentially, the ATA is a mini, purpose built media conversion switch. A
> lot going on under the hood of those silly little things when you think
> about it :).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
> > On May 22, 2018, at 04:57, Jon Fox <jonfoxipt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All
> >
> > Trying to troubleshoot an issue with a Cisco ATA - CUCM 10.5.2SU3
> >
> > I've not had to touch these for some time, so cannot remember if its
> natural behaviour for Port 1 and Port 2 registering with the same IP
> address? Is that standard? - Screenshot attached.
> >
> > <image.png>
> >
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Jon
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20180522/529b99a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 38614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20180522/529b99a3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 38614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20180522/529b99a3/attachment-0001.png>