Mailing List Archive

Peter,

A 'debug voip ccapi inout' on the 3745 should show the timer that is popping
and causing the call to be torn down. Is the VOIP control protocol h323 or
MGCP?

Also, what is the originating VOIP device?

IPPhones do not do RTCP so the IOS gateways will timeout on non-receipt of
RTCP if "no mgcp timer receive-rtcp" is not configured in the gateway.

sample config:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_configurati
on_example09186a008022eaa3.shtml

/Wes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> peter.casanave@us.army.mil
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:47 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Cc: Voll, Scott
> Subject: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
>
>
> I have been stuck on this issue for a few days. I am running two
> T1 CAS interfaces off my 3745 into an unnamed military PBX. Have
> my T1s built using DS0-groups emulating ISDN switch-type of 5ESS.
> I am able to process call thru the PBX but they drop off at 50
> seconds to the "T." The weird thing is I only have this issue on
> calls originating from the VoIP side. Remote calls calling my IP
> phones work great. I was just wondering if anyone has seen this
> before. I know it my be a PBX issue.
>
> V/R,
> PETER CASANAVE
> SSG, USA
> BBN Platoon Sergeant
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Voll, Scott" <Scott.Voll@wesd.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:36 pm
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
>
> > Do you have to run it as a trunk on the 2924?
> >
> > Our 3550's look like this:
> >
> > interface FastEthernet0/2
> > switchport access vlan 10
> > switchport mode dynamic desirable
> > switchport voice vlan 102
> > mls qos trust cos
> > wrr-queue cos-map 1 0 1
> > wrr-queue cos-map 2 2 3
> > wrr-queue cos-map 3 4
> > wrr-queue cos-map 4 5 6 7
> > priority-queue out
> > spanning-tree portfast
> >
> > PC's connected to Phones and everything works.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > PS. Simon, are you using CM and what version if so?
> > I had some problems with phones on the wrong vlan until the firmware
> > upgraded on the phone. Then they worked just fine.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Hamilton-Wilkes [simon@jettis.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:27 PM
> > To: 'Anthony Mendoza'; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
> >
> > The voice interfaces should look something like this:
> > interface FastEthernet0/5
> > switchport access vlan 416
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk allowed vlan 415,416
> > switchport mode dynamic desirable
> > switchport voice vlan 415
> > spanning-tree portfast
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > [cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Mendoza
> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:04 PM
> > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
> >
> >
> > I've got a Cat2924XL with the following relevant config snippets:
> >
> > rwc-2924xl-131#show vlan
> > 12 DMZ active
> > 100 IP Phones active Fa0/7
> >
> > interface FastEthernet0/5
> > switchport voice vlan 100
> > spanning-tree portfast
> > !
> > interface FastEthernet0/6
> > switchport access vlan 2
> > switchport voice vlan 100
> > !
> > interface FastEthernet0/7
> > switchport access vlan 100
> > spanning-tree portfast
> >
> > interface FastEthernet0/24
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport mode trunk
> >
> > interface VLAN2
> > ip address 172.16.0.131 255.255.0.0
> > no ip directed-broadcast
> > no ip route-cache
> >
> >
> > So... FE0/7 works fine (as you would expect), but neither 0/5 or 0/6
> > work
> > ... The phone sees the operational VLAN 100, but never gets an IP..
> > What
> > the heck am I doing wrong? Cisco's docs only show the "switchport
> > voicevlan" option as being relevant. Is there something I'm
> > missing on the
> > switch config? I've rebooted the phones and switch a few times.
> >
> > Thanks for any help,
> > --
> > Anthony Mendoza
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message
> > and or
> > attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
> > addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
> > Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use
> > of this
> > information by persons or entities other than the intended
> > recipient is
> > prohibited. If you received this e-mail or its attachments in error,
> > please
> > contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy
> > any
> > copies.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>

Wes,

We are currently are using H323. We do not have this command inputed "no mgcp timer receive-rtcp" in our script. I did the debug command and it resulted in no displayed output. Any other ideas?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Sisk <wsisk@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:59 pm
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.

> Peter,
>
> A 'debug voip ccapi inout' on the 3745 should show the timer that
> is popping
> and causing the call to be torn down. Is the VOIP control
> protocol h323 or
> MGCP?
>
> Also, what is the originating VOIP device?
>
> IPPhones do not do RTCP so the IOS gateways will timeout on non-
> receipt of
> RTCP if "no mgcp timer receive-rtcp" is not configured in the gateway.
>
> sample config:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_configurati
> on_example09186a008022eaa3.shtml
>
> /Wes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > [cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > peter.casanave@us.army.mil
> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:47 AM
> > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > Cc: Voll, Scott
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
> >
> >
> > I have been stuck on this issue for a few days. I am running two
> > T1 CAS interfaces off my 3745 into an unnamed military PBX. Have
> > my T1s built using DS0-groups emulating ISDN switch-type of 5ESS.
> > I am able to process call thru the PBX but they drop off at 50
> > seconds to the "T." The weird thing is I only have this issue on
> > calls originating from the VoIP side. Remote calls calling my IP
> > phones work great. I was just wondering if anyone has seen this
> > before. I know it my be a PBX issue.
> >
> > V/R,
> > PETER CASANAVE
> > SSG, USA
> > BBN Platoon Sergeant
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Voll, Scott" <Scott.Voll@wesd.org>
> > Date: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:36 pm
> > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
> >
> > > Do you have to run it as a trunk on the 2924?
> > >
> > > Our 3550's look like this:
> > >
> > > interface FastEthernet0/2
> > > switchport access vlan 10
> > > switchport mode dynamic desirable
> > > switchport voice vlan 102
> > > mls qos trust cos
> > > wrr-queue cos-map 1 0 1
> > > wrr-queue cos-map 2 2 3
> > > wrr-queue cos-map 3 4
> > > wrr-queue cos-map 4 5 6 7
> > > priority-queue out
> > > spanning-tree portfast
> > >
> > > PC's connected to Phones and everything works.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > PS. Simon, are you using CM and what version if so?
> > > I had some problems with phones on the wrong vlan until the
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Simon Hamilton-Wilkes [simon@jettis.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:27 PM
> > > To: 'Anthony Mendoza'; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
> > >
> > > The voice interfaces should look something like this:
> > > interface FastEthernet0/5
> > > switchport access vlan 416
> > > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > > switchport trunk allowed vlan 415,416
> > > switchport mode dynamic desirable
> > > switchport voice vlan 415
> > > spanning-tree portfast
> > >
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > > [cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Mendoza
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:04 PM
> > > To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
> > >
> > >
> > > I've got a Cat2924XL with the following relevant config snippets:
> > >
> > > rwc-2924xl-131#show vlan
> > > 12 DMZ active
> > > 100 IP Phones active Fa0/7
> > >
> > > interface FastEthernet0/5
> > > switchport voice vlan 100
> > > spanning-tree portfast
> > > !
> > > interface FastEthernet0/6
> > > switchport access vlan 2
> > > switchport voice vlan 100
> > > !
> > > interface FastEthernet0/7
> > > switchport access vlan 100
> > > spanning-tree portfast
> > >
> > > interface FastEthernet0/24
> > > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > > switchport mode trunk
> > >
> > > interface VLAN2
> > > ip address 172.16.0.131 255.255.0.0
> > > no ip directed-broadcast
> > > no ip route-cache
> > >
> > >
> > > So... FE0/7 works fine (as you would expect), but neither 0/5
> or 0/6
> > > work
> > > ... The phone sees the operational VLAN 100, but never gets
> an IP..
> > > What
> > > the heck am I doing wrong? Cisco's docs only show the "switchport
> > > voicevlan" option as being relevant. Is there something I'm
> > > missing on the
> > > switch config? I've rebooted the phones and switch a few times.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any help,
> > > --
> > > Anthony Mendoza
> > >
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message
> > > and or
> > > attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which
> it is
> > > addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
> > > Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use
> > > of this
> > > information by persons or entities other than the intended
> > > recipient is
> > > prohibited. If you received this e-mail or its attachments in
> error,> > please
> > > contact the sender and delete the material from any system and
> > > copies.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> >
>
>

Peter,

If you telnet into the router, then you must do "term mon" before
performing the debugs.

/Wes

peter.casanave@us.army.mil wrote:

>Wes,
>
> We are currently are using H323. We do not have this command inputed "no mgcp timer receive-rtcp" in our script. I did the debug command and it resulted in no displayed output. Any other ideas?
>
>V/R,
>PETER CASANAVE
>SSG, USA
>BBN Platoon Sergeant
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wes Sisk <wsisk@cisco.com>
>Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:59 pm
>Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
>
>
>
>>Peter,
>>
>>A 'debug voip ccapi inout' on the 3745 should show the timer that
>>is popping
>>and causing the call to be torn down. Is the VOIP control
>>protocol h323 or
>>MGCP?
>>
>>Also, what is the originating VOIP device?
>>
>>IPPhones do not do RTCP so the IOS gateways will timeout on non-
>>receipt of
>>RTCP if "no mgcp timer receive-rtcp" is not configured in the gateway.
>>
>>sample config:
>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_configurati
>>on_example09186a008022eaa3.shtml
>>
>>/Wes
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
>>>[cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
>>>peter.casanave@us.army.mil
>>>Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:47 AM
>>>To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>Cc: Voll, Scott
>>>Subject: [cisco-voip] T1 dropoffs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been stuck on this issue for a few days. I am running two
>>>T1 CAS interfaces off my 3745 into an unnamed military PBX. Have
>>>my T1s built using DS0-groups emulating ISDN switch-type of 5ESS.
>>>I am able to process call thru the PBX but they drop off at 50
>>>seconds to the "T." The weird thing is I only have this issue on
>>>calls originating from the VoIP side. Remote calls calling my IP
>>>phones work great. I was just wondering if anyone has seen this
>>>before. I know it my be a PBX issue.
>>>
>>>V/R,
>>>PETER CASANAVE
>>>SSG, USA
>>>BBN Platoon Sergeant
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Voll, Scott" <Scott.Voll@wesd.org>
>>>Date: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:36 pm
>>>Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you have to run it as a trunk on the 2924?
>>>>
>>>>Our 3550's look like this:
>>>>
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/2
>>>>switchport access vlan 10
>>>>switchport mode dynamic desirable
>>>>switchport voice vlan 102
>>>>mls qos trust cos
>>>>wrr-queue cos-map 1 0 1
>>>>wrr-queue cos-map 2 2 3
>>>>wrr-queue cos-map 3 4
>>>>wrr-queue cos-map 4 5 6 7
>>>>priority-queue out
>>>>spanning-tree portfast
>>>>
>>>>PC's connected to Phones and everything works.
>>>>
>>>>Scott
>>>>
>>>>PS. Simon, are you using CM and what version if so?
>>>>I had some problems with phones on the wrong vlan until the
>>>>
>>>>
>>firmware> > upgraded on the phone. Then they worked just fine.
>>
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Simon Hamilton-Wilkes [simon@jettis.com]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:27 PM
>>>>To: 'Anthony Mendoza'; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
>>>>
>>>>The voice interfaces should look something like this:
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/5
>>>>switchport access vlan 416
>>>>switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
>>>>switchport trunk allowed vlan 415,416
>>>>switchport mode dynamic desirable
>>>>switchport voice vlan 415
>>>>spanning-tree portfast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Simon
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
>>>>[cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Mendoza
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:04 PM
>>>>To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>Subject: [cisco-voip] Need Help Configuring Cat2924XL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've got a Cat2924XL with the following relevant config snippets:
>>>>
>>>>rwc-2924xl-131#show vlan
>>>>12 DMZ active
>>>>100 IP Phones active Fa0/7
>>>>
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/5
>>>> switchport voice vlan 100
>>>> spanning-tree portfast
>>>>!
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/6
>>>> switchport access vlan 2
>>>> switchport voice vlan 100
>>>>!
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/7
>>>> switchport access vlan 100
>>>> spanning-tree portfast
>>>>
>>>>interface FastEthernet0/24
>>>> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
>>>> switchport mode trunk
>>>>
>>>>interface VLAN2
>>>> ip address 172.16.0.131 255.255.0.0
>>>> no ip directed-broadcast
>>>> no ip route-cache
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So... FE0/7 works fine (as you would expect), but neither 0/5
>>>>
>>>>
>>or 0/6
>>
>>
>>>>work
>>>>... The phone sees the operational VLAN 100, but never gets
>>>>
>>>>
>>an IP..
>>
>>
>>>>What
>>>>the heck am I doing wrong? Cisco's docs only show the "switchport
>>>>voicevlan" option as being relevant. Is there something I'm
>>>>missing on the
>>>>switch config? I've rebooted the phones and switch a few times.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for any help,
>>>>--
>>>>Anthony Mendoza
>>>>
>>>>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message
>>>>and or
>>>>attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which
>>>>
>>>>
>>it is
>>
>>
>>>>addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
>>>>Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use
>>>>of this
>>>>information by persons or entities other than the intended
>>>>recipient is
>>>>prohibited. If you received this e-mail or its attachments in
>>>>
>>>>
>>error,> > please
>>
>>
>>>>contact the sender and delete the material from any system and
>>>>
>>>>
>>destroy> > any
>>
>>
>>>>copies.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

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

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_note09186a00801
0ae1c.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk90/technologies_tech_note09186a00801
47524.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk90/technologies_tech_note09186a00801
0fed1.shtml

/Wes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> peter.casanave@us.army.mil
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:54 AM
> To: EKNUDSON@houston.rr.com
> Cc: cisco-voip@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
>
>

Peter,

That should work fine, though you probably won't experience a true load-balance with that config. What most likely will happen is that all the matching calls will match the first dial-peer until the corresponding voice-port is saturated, then roll over to the next one. If you want to do something a bit more elegant, you can aggregate multiple voice-ports using 'trunk groups,' take a look here at the various trunkgroup commands here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122tcr/122tvr/vrg_t1.htm


controller T1 1/0
ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-10 type e&m-fgd
cas-custom 1
trunk-group foo

controller T1 1/1
ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-10 type e&m-fgd
cas-custom 1
trunk-group foo

dial-peer voice 1 pots
destination-pattern .......
trunkgroup foo
foward-digits all

Hope this helps!

Eric


----- Original Message -----
From: peter.casanave@us.army.mil
Date: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:53 am
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
>
>

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@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@us.army.mil [peter.casanave@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@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@puck.nether.net
> > > > [cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > peter.casanave@us.army.mil
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:54 AM
> > > > To: EKNUDSON@houston.rr.com
> > > > Cc: cisco-voip@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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>