Kshitij , oh again !
the Isdn layer is lower than the mgcp , if you will busy out the channel the ccm will not consider them OOS , the 500 unknown endpoint is not enough to make the ccm busy out the non-used b-channel , try to busy them out from the service parameters and you will see the same exact debugs output you used them , in order to busy them out you have to use the service parameters to do this for you , otherwise the ccm will send setup call to those channels and you will see circuit unavailable coming back as a replay !! what ccm version you are using ? 7.0 ? Ash On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Kshitij Singhi <martinian.ksin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Noticed 2 modifications that can be made - it should be spelled niece > And status 2 = idle (which effectively could mean that it is "not in use" > i.e. there isn't an active call on it). I was thinking from the perspective > of "Not in use" as in it's not participating in call routing. > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Kshitij Singhi > <martinian.ksin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> OK. Let's dance. >> Given below is my configuration (the pertinent section): >> show run | sec controller >> controller T1 0/0/0 >> framing esf >> linecode b8zs >> pri-group timeslots 1-3,24 service mgcp >> show run | sec interface Serial0/0/0 >> interface Serial0/0/0:23 >> no ip address >> encapsulation hdlc >> isdn switch-type primary-ni >> isdn incoming-voice voice >> isdn bind-l3 ccm-manager >> isdn outgoing display-ie >> isdn outgoing ie redirecting-number >> no cdp enable >> show run | in mgcp >> pri-group timeslots 1-3,24 service mgcp >> ccm-manager mgcp >> mgcp >> mgcp call-agent 192.168.10.47 service-type mgcp version 0.1 >> no mgcp package-capability res-package >> no mgcp timer receive-rtcp >> mgcp bind control source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0.102 >> mgcp bind media source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0.102 >> mgcp profile default >> show run | in ccm >> isdn bind-l3 ccm-manager >> ccm-manager switchback immediate >> ccm-manager redundant-host 192.168.10.46 >> ccm-manager mgcp >> no ccm-manager fax protocol cisco >> ccm-manager music-on-hold >> do show ccm-manager >> MGCP Domain Name: SiteA >> Priority Status Host >> ============================================================ >> Primary Registered 192.168.10.47 >> First Backup Backup Ready 192.168.10.46 >> Second Backup None >> Current active Call Manager: 192.168.10.47 >> Backhaul/Redundant link port: 2428 >> Failover Interval: 30 seconds >> Keepalive Interval: 15 seconds >> Last keepalive sent: 21:50:15 PDT Oct 6 2011 (elapsed time: >> 00:00:10) >> Last MGCP traffic time: 21:50:15 PDT Oct 6 2011 (elapsed time: >> 00:00:10) >> Last failover time: 01:07:35 PDT Oct 1 2011 from >> (192.168.10.47) >> Last switchback time: 01:08:05 PDT Oct 1 2011 from >> (192.168.10.46) >> Switchback mode: Immediate >> MGCP Fallback mode: Not Selected >> Last MGCP Fallback start time: None >> Last MGCP Fallback end time: None >> MGCP Download Tones: Disabled >> TFTP retry count to shut Ports: 2 >> Backhaul Link info: >> Link Protocol: TCP >> Remote Port Number: 2428 >> Remote IP Address: 192.168.10.47 >> Current Link State: OPEN >> Statistics: >> Packets recvd: 1 >> Recv failures: 0 >> Packets xmitted: 1 >> Xmit failures: 0 >> PRI Ports being backhauled: >> Slot 0, VIC 0, port 0 >> FAX mode: disable >> Configuration Error History: >> Let's take a look at this section in point 1: >> "we here talking about the B Channel not >> the D-Channal so getting 500 on the AUEP doesnt mean >> the mgcp gw will busy out this channel and thats exactly why we have >> this service paramert in the ccm to busy out the b-chann" >> Since I have only 3 channels configured on the T1 controller, I took a >> debug mgcp packet and saw: >> Oct 7 04:48:00.453: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> RSIP 696986311 *@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> RM: restart >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.457: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 200 696986311 >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.461: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 259 S0/SU0/DS1-0/1@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.461: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 200 259 >> I: >> X: 0 >> L: p:10-20, a:PCMU;PCMA;G.nX64, b:64, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-220, a:G.729;G.729a;G.729b, b:8, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-110, a:G.726-16;G.728, b:16, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-70, a:G.726-24, b:24, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-50, a:G.726-32, b:32, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-270, a:G.723.1-H;G.723;G.723.1a-H, b:6, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, >> t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-330, a:G.723.1-L;G.723.1a-L, b:5, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> M: sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, inactive, loopback, conttest, data, >> netwloop, netwtest >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.461: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 260 S0/SU0/DS1-0/2@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.465: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 200 260 >> I: >> X: 0 >> L: p:10-20, a:PCMU;PCMA;G.nX64, b:64, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-220, a:G.729;G.729a;G.729b, b:8, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-110, a:G.726-16;G.728, b:16, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-70, a:G.726-24, b:24, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-50, a:G.726-32, b:32, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-270, a:G.723.1-H;G.723;G.723.1a-H, b:6, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, >> t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-330, a:G.723.1-L;G.723.1a-L, b:5, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> M: sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, inactive, loopback, conttest, data, >> netwloop, netwtest >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.465: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 261 S0/SU0/DS1-0/3@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.465: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 200 261 >> I: >> X: 0 >> L: p:10-20, a:PCMU;PCMA;G.nX64, b:64, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-220, a:G.729;G.729a;G.729b, b:8, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-110, a:G.726-16;G.728, b:16, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-70, a:G.726-24, b:24, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:10-50, a:G.726-32, b:32, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, >> nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-270, a:G.723.1-H;G.723;G.723.1a-H, b:6, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, >> t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> L: p:30-330, a:G.723.1-L;G.723.1a-L, b:5, e:on, es-cci, gc:1, s:on, t:10, >> r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;ATM;FXR >> M: sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, inactive, loopback, conttest, data, >> netwloop, netwtest >> <--- >> We receive an AUEP for channels 1,2 and 3 and send a 200 OK for each. >> We receive an AUEP for channels 4 - 23 and send an "Endpoint unknown" for >> each channel. >> Oct 7 04:48:00.469: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 262 S0/SU0/DS1-0/4@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.469: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 500 262 Endpt Unknown >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.469: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 263 S0/SU0/DS1-0/5@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> ... >> ... >> ... >> ... >> (output cut for brevity since this is going to be one heck of a long >> email) >> Oct 7 04:48:00.481: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> AUEP 281 S0/SU0/DS1-0/23@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> F: X, A, I >> <--- >> Oct 7 04:48:00.481: MGCP Packet sent to 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> 500 281 Endpt Unknown >> <--- >> Hence, CUCM asks the GW about the status of the endpoint(s) i.e. the >> B-channels configured via the pri-group timeslots command the the GW sends >> an appropriate response to channels >> 1,2 and 3 but doesn't have knowledge of the rest of the B-channels. Hence, >> the GW sends an endpoint unknown. (Note, all this is being done WITHOUT >> changing any Service Parameter >> in CUCM). If we check the "show isdn status", we see: >> do show isdn stat >> Global ISDN Switchtype = primary-ni >> %Q.931 is backhauled to CCM MANAGER 0x0003 on DSL 0. Layer 3 output may >> not apply >> ISDN Serial0/0/0:23 interface >> dsl 0, interface ISDN Switchtype = primary-ni >> L2 Protocol = Q.921 0x0000 L3 Protocol(s) = CCM MANAGER 0x0003 >> Layer 1 Status: >> ACTIVE >> Layer 2 Status: >> TEI = 0, Ces = 1, SAPI = 0, State = MULTIPLE_FRAME_ESTABLISHED >> Layer 3 Status: >> 0 Active Layer 3 Call(s) >> Active dsl 0 CCBs = 0 >> The Free Channel Mask: 0x80000007 >> Number of L2 Discards = 0, L2 Session ID = 5 >> Total Allocated ISDN CCBs = 0 >> Hence, L2 is in MULTIPLE_FRAME_ESTABLISHED and we have Q.931 backhauling. >> Now let's check what does the gateway have to say about the channels on >> the PRI: >> do show isdn ser >> PRI Channel Statistics: >> %Q.931 is backhauled to CCM MANAGER 0x0003 on DSL 0. Layer 3 output may >> not apply >> ISDN Se0/0/0:23, Channel [1-24] >> Configured Isdn Interface (dsl) 0 >> Channel State (0=Idle 1=Proposed 2=Busy 3=Reserved 4=Restart >> 5=Maint_Pend) >> Channel : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 >> State : 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 >> Service State (0=Inservice 1=Maint 2=Outofservice 8=MaintPend >> 9=OOSPend) >> Channel : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 >> State : 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 >> ONLY CHANNELS 1,2 and 3 are Idle/Inservice. All the rest of the channels >> are in a reserved state/OOS. (Once again, this is WITHOUT changing any >> service parameter on CUCM). >> Just for kicks, let's take a look at the show perf query class "Cisco MGCP >> PRI Device" from the SUB, which is where the GW is registered as of now: >> admin:show perf query class "Cisco MGCP PRI Device" >> ==>query class : >> - Perf class (Cisco MGCP PRI Device) has instances and values: >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> CallsActive = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> CallsCompleted = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 1 Status = 2 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 2 Status = 2 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 3 Status = 2 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 4 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 5 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 6 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 7 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 8 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 9 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 10 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 11 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 12 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 13 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 14 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 15 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 16 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 17 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 18 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 19 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 20 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 21 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 22 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 23 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 24 Status = 4 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 25 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 26 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 27 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 28 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 29 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 30 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> Channel 31 Status = 0 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> DatalinkInService = 1 >> sitea::S0_SU0_DS1-0 -> OutboundBusyAttempts = 0 >> As this link will tell you: >> >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/net_mgmt/cisco_unified_operations_manager/8.0/user/guide/TrapMIBS.html#wp1054379 >> 0 - Unknown >> 1 - OOS >> 2 - Idle >> 3 - Busy >> 4 - Reserved >> Hence, as a result of the "endpoint unknown" sent by the GW, CUCM has >> placed ALL the channels in an unknown state (except channels 1,2 and 3). >> Question of the day - will CM route >> the call to an endpoint that is in an unknown status? (My neice will be >> able to answer that and she just about reaches my waist). Hence, the GW is >> putting the "unconfigured" B- >> channels OOS WITHOUT any intervention from the CUCM. The statement "500 on >> the AUEP doesnt mean the mgcp gw will busy out this channel and thats >> exactly why we have >> this service paramert in the ccm to busy out the b-chann" has thus been >> shot down. >> After this, it has been stated that: >> "and after >> that you can verify this from the show perf query class of the mgcp >> pri and you will see the bchannl not in use on status 2" >> Firstly, status 2 means the channel is idle and not that the B-channel is >> not in use. >> Secondly, CUCM is intelligent enough to put the B-channel in an unknown >> state without modifying the parameter, as is evident from the output given >> above. >> >> One might argue - what about functionality? Is it really so simple to get >> 3/4 points in the GW section? Do we have any proof of the functionality? >> Surprisingly, we do!!! I made the >> following tests: >> 1. Call to 911 with the aforementioned configuration. >> MGCP CRCX shows: >> Oct 7 05:41:34.913: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> CRCX 290 S0/SU0/DS1-0/3@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> C: D00000000202e629000000F500000003 >> X: 3 >> L: p:20, a:PCMU, s:off, t:b8, fxr/fx:t38 >> M: recvonly >> R: D/[0-9ABCD*#] >> Q: process,loop >> <--- >> What do you know - my neice was correct!! CUCM is sending the call on >> Channel 3 of the PRI despite the Service Parameter in CUCM being left >> untouched. >> ISDN setup shows the same: >> Oct 7 05:41:34.933: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: TX -> SETUP pd = 8 callref = >> 0x0003 >> Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2 >> Standard = CCITT >> Transfer Capability = Speech >> Transfer Mode = Circuit >> Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s >> Channel ID i = 0xA98383 >> Exclusive, Channel 3 >> Called Party Number i = 0x81, '911' >> Plan:ISDN, Type:Unknown >> Oct 7 05:41:34.945: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: RX <- CALL_PROC pd = 8 callref >> = 0x8003 >> Channel ID i = 0xA98383 >> Exclusive, Channel 3 >> 2, For laughs, I went ahead and changed the channel selection on the PRI >> endpoint page such that CUCM uses channel 1. (just to see if functionality >> changes post changing this back >> again). For now, as expected, we saw that: >> MGCP is sending the call on channel 1: >> Oct 7 05:43:00.141: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> CRCX 317 S0/SU0/DS1-0/1@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> C: D00000000202e62b000000F500000001 >> X: 1 >> L: p:20, a:PCMU, s:off, t:00 >> M: recvonly >> R: D/[0-9ABCD*#] >> Q: process,loop >> <--- >> ISDN forwards the same: >> Oct 7 05:43:00.157: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: TX -> SETUP pd = 8 callref = >> 0x0001 >> Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2 >> Standard = CCITT >> Transfer Capability = Speech >> Transfer Mode = Circuit >> Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s >> Channel ID i = 0xA98381 >> Exclusive, Channel 1 >> Called Party Number i = 0x81, '911' >> Plan:ISDN, Type:Unknown >> Oct 7 05:43:00.169: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: RX <- CALL_PROC pd = 8 callref >> = 0x8001 >> Channel ID i = 0xA98381 >> Exclusive, Channel 1 >> 3. I now flipped this over to what it was originally at, to check if CUCM >> suddenly decides that it doesn't know that channels 4-23 are OOS/unknown >> since the service parameter has >> not been configured, and the results were obvious. The call went out >> channel 3 again: >> Oct 7 06:16:51.836: MGCP Packet received from 192.168.10.47:2427---> >> CRCX 344 S0/SU0/DS1-0/3@SiteA MGCP 0.1 >> C: D00000000202e62d000000F500000001 >> X: 3 >> L: p:20, a:PCMU, s:off, t:00 >> M: recvonly >> R: D/[0-9ABCD*#] >> Q: process,loop >> <--- >> Oct 7 06:16:51.856: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: TX -> SETUP pd = 8 callref = >> 0x0001 >> Bearer Capability i = 0x8090A2 >> Standard = CCITT >> Transfer Capability = Speech >> Transfer Mode = Circuit >> Transfer Rate = 64 kbit/s >> Channel ID i = 0xA98383 >> Exclusive, Channel 3 >> Called Party Number i = 0x81, '911' >> Plan:ISDN, Type:Unknown >> Oct 7 06:16:51.868: ISDN Se0/0/0:23 Q931: RX <- CALL_PROC pd = 8 callref >> = 0x8001 >> Channel ID i = 0xA98383 >> Exclusive, Channel 3 >> Thus, the long and short of it is that the configuration/setup given above >> is "working" great and is "true". >> >> Ash - I had humbly requested you not to stoop lower and that is exactly >> what happened - empty threats. It's sad. Very sad. >> I'm not really sure what you mean by "Real Labs" or "Real >> expert/escalation team" >> Not once has anyone ever mentioned that the word of a TAC engineer is law >> and it should be followed without question, but you seem to have inferred >> that from somewhere - I hope the delusion passes. >> Everyone, I would like to sincerely apologize for the unfortunate exchange >> of emails (and applaud whoever had the patience to look through this one coz >> I dozed off while reading through it :) ) that should not have taken place >> on the OSL in the first place. It goes against the spirit of the OSL and >> creates unnecessary friction. >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Ashraf Ayyash <ash.ayy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> i have gave explanation why your info's is wrong and there is no >>> etiquette in the network , its either working or not working , true or >>> false , >>> >>> i am always giving a prove from real labs and i never used the >>> company that i work for to give people reason to take the info i >>> shared as trusted and this is not poolshitting ,, the only >>> poolshitting is to come and say because i am working for Cisco TAC my >>> info must be trusted and people have no right to say/ prove the >>> opposite >>> >>> go ahead and speak with anyone from the real expert / escalation team >>> and they will tell you if your info is right or wrong even though i >>> don't care , >>> i only email the alias because this can be very likely a question in >>> the exam and then people will follow MR Cisco TAC engineer who share a >>> wrong >>> info and then they will get a bad score on the GW section , even >>> though you always INSULT back when you answering , i really don't pay >>> Shxit to your replays , stop share non-tested info and verify your >>> answer before answer it and you will never see me replaying for >>> correct info saying its wrong info , Be professional please and keep >>> in mind that Next time i will not accept any stupid word back from >>> your side i will carry it to your managment straight away and we will >>> see if your contract have Cisco Employee NDA commitment or not .... >>> >>> >>> Ash >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Kshitij Singhi >>> <martinian.ksin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > It's not wrong and you desperately need to stop bullshi**ing. >>> > I know precisely what I am allowed/not allowed to do and you are no one >>> > and >>> > will always be no one to tell me or anyone about it. Follow it if you >>> > want >>> > to, ignore it if you believe you know better - either way all the best >>> > for >>> > your exam. >>> > >>> > Things are only as complicated as you make them - just a tip for life. >>> > Instead of arguing on a public forum and making such resentful and rude >>> > statements, please ping me directly if you have any issues and prove me >>> > wrong - I will definitely rescind any statements made by me that have >>> > been >>> > proven wrong conclusively. PLEASE don't stoop lower than this. PLEASE >>> > take >>> > this off the OSL. I'm literally begging you - PLEASE. Once again, read >>> > the >>> > etiquette section thoroughly. >>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Ashraf Ayyash <ash.ayy...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> this is completly wrong Kshitij , >>> >> >>> >> 1- the mgcp layer have nothing to do with the isdn layer even though >>> >> the l3 is binded to the ccm , we here talking about the B Channel not >>> >> the D-Channal so getting 500 on the AUEP doesnt mean >>> >> the mgcp gw will busy out this channel and thats exactly why we have >>> >> this service paramert in the ccm to busy out the b-chann and after >>> >> that you can verify this from the show perf query class of the mgcp >>> >> pri and you will see the bchannl not in use on status 2 . >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2- in term of the ccie scope , this is also completey wrong , if you >>> >> have mgcp gw question and you have been asked to use on certain >>> >> number of b-chann , what do you think they are asking you to do pri >>> >> group command and move on with 4 points ? or cisco doest have enough >>> >> dsp to put on the router exam ? try do show invent and you will see >>> >> what is loaded on the exam router . >>> >> >>> >> finally please note that you are using / talking by the name of Cisco >>> >> TAC , even though you are not allowed do so , however at least be more >>> >> accurate on the answer you are publising here as now you bring TAC to >>> >> the game and this is not good for the TAC picture on the public >>> >> aliases . >>> >> >>> >> the answer of this question is , certainly they will need you to use >>> >> the service paramater to busy out the unused channel , note also that >>> >> this is a ccie level exam so i would suggest that you always try >>> >> to find out why they asking any easy question because you will find >>> >> that this easy question is just a pointer to do something deeper which >>> >> will give the ccie program a chance to test your knowledge on a CCIE >>> >> Level . >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ash >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Kshitij Singhi >>> >> <martinian.ksin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > Just to add, from a CCIE scope, the IPX way is enough - we simply >>> >> > need >>> >> > to >>> >> > manually add the pri-group timeslots command with the correct number >>> >> > of >>> >> > channels that need to be used. Not required to modify any service >>> >> > parameter >>> >> > on CUCM. >>> >> > From the exams perspective, I would suggest: >>> >> > 1. Downloading the configuration from CUCM by adding the ccm-manager >>> >> > config >>> >> > and ccm-manager config server commands after configuring everything >>> >> > on >>> >> > CUCM. >>> >> > 2. This should add the pri-group timeslots command with 24 channels. >>> >> > 3. Shut down the voice-port/serial interface/controller and remove >>> >> > L3 >>> >> > binding from the Serial interface >>> >> > 4. Remove the ccm-manager config/ccm-manager config server commands. >>> >> > 5. Remove the pri-g timeslots command and re-add it with the correct >>> >> > number >>> >> > of channels. No shut the controller and the serial interface (if >>> >> > applicable). >>> >> > 6. Manually add L3 binding on the Serial interface. >>> >> > Issue a no mgcp/mgcp >>> >> > Should be good to go. >>> >> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Kshitij Singhi >>> >> > <martinian.ksin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Fractional MGCP controlled PRIs are not supported by TAC. It's not >>> >> >> possible to configure a fractional PRI by downloading the config >>> >> >> from >>> >> >> CUCM >>> >> >> via the following commands: >>> >> >> ccm-manager config >>> >> >> ccm-manager config server <IP> >>> >> >> However, a fractional MGCP controlled PRI works fine when the GW is >>> >> >> manually configured. To do this, we need to add the following >>> >> >> commands >>> >> >> on >>> >> >> the GW: >>> >> >> ccm-m mgc >>> >> >> ccm-m call-agent <IP> >>> >> >> ccm-m redun <IP> (If applicable) >>> >> >> controller t1 x/y/z >>> >> >> pri-g time 1-5 ser mgc (assuming 5 channels are being used - the >>> >> >> Telco >>> >> >> will need to be configured accordingly as well) >>> >> >> int ser x/y/z:23 >>> >> >> isdn bind-l3 ccm-manager >>> >> >> mgcp >>> >> >> The statement "CUCM does not support a fractional MGCP controlled >>> >> >> PRI" >>> >> >> might not be entirely accurate since CUCM definitely works great >>> >> >> with a >>> >> >> fractional MGCP controlled PRI. I guess saying that "CUCM cannot >>> >> >> auto >>> >> >> configure a fractional MGCP controlled PRI" would be more accurate. >>> >> >> In the case of a fractional PRI, CUCM sends AUEP messages to the GW >>> >> >> for >>> >> >> the "unconfigured" channels on the PRI, but the GW responds with an >>> >> >> "endpoint unknown" message - hence, CUCM does not consider those >>> >> >> channels >>> >> >> during call routing. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, >>> >> >> <ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Send CCIE_Voice mailing list submissions to >>> >> >>> ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> >> >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice >>> >> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> >> >>> ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> >> >>> ccie_voice-ow...@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >>> >> >>> specific >>> >> >>> than "Re: Contents of CCIE_Voice digest..." >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> 1. Re: I need hardware Vpn assistance on a session now >>> >> >>> (Marko Milivojevic) >>> >> >>> 2. Re: I need hardware Vpn assistance on a session now >>> >> >>> (pithog...@yahoo.com) >>> >> >>> 3. Re: Fractional MGCP (Robert Thomas) >>> >> >>> 4. Re: I need hardware Vpn assistance on a session now >>> >> >>> (Rrcrumm) >>> >> >>> 5. PREDOT DDI vs NANP:PREDOT DDI (Ken Wyan) >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Message: 1 >>> >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 13:51:57 -0700 >>> >> >>> From: Marko Milivojevic <mar...@ipexpert.com> >>> >> >>> To: edgar feliz <ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" >>> >> >>> <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>, >>> >> >>> "pithog...@yahoo.com" <pithog...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance on >>> >> >>> a >>> >> >>> session now >>> >> >>> Message-ID: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> <CAGDYm0wMnWMYZBDGDhh=fpiyf_n99kqqfjkd+hnkntkirjt...@mail.gmail.com> >>> >> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We've had somewhat a perfect storm of multiple things go wrong. We >>> >> >>> should be operational right now and we have several support cases >>> >> >>> open >>> >> >>> with our ISPs and equipment vendors. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Please, get in touch with our support at supp...@ipexpert.com and >>> >> >>> supp...@proctorlabs.com with any issues that you may still be >>> >> >>> having. >>> >> >>> We have our entire support and technical team, including all the >>> >> >>> instructors working on maintaing our services up and running at >>> >> >>> the >>> >> >>> level you are all used to. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We sincerely apologize for the inconveniences. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 >>> >> >>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Mailto: mar...@ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >>> >> >>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:34, edgar feliz <ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> > To many people are having issue for it to be "operator error" >>> >> >>> > it's?definitely something on their end ISP etc. >>> >> >>> > EJF >>> >> >>> > ________________________________ >>> >> >>> > From: Chris Martin <clm.c...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> > To: pithog...@yahoo.com >>> >> >>> > Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> > Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:31 AM >>> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance >>> >> >>> > on a >>> >> >>> > session >>> >> >>> > now >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > You can open a case with support, that would be the quickest way >>> >> >>> > to >>> >> >>> > get >>> >> >>> > their help. ?Did you use IPE's configuration for hardware vpn? >>> >> >>> > ?What >>> >> >>> > type of >>> >> >>> > router are you using? ?Did you enter the commands to initiate >>> >> >>> > the >>> >> >>> > xauth? >>> >> >>> > Chris >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:58 AM, <pithog...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > I am on a current session now and I can't access proctorlabs via >>> >> >>> > hardware >>> >> >>> > vpn, my router can ping internet but my laptop connected to the >>> >> >>> > router >>> >> >>> > can't >>> >> >>> > access the internet so as to initiate hardware VPN . >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Please help, you can even connect to my laptop via team viewer . >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Experts kindly assist >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Pithohoil >>> >> >>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high >>> >> >>> > speed >>> >> >>> > internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our >>> >> >>> > experience >>> >> >>> > centres >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Message: 2 >>> >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 21:00:34 +0000 >>> >> >>> From: pithog...@yahoo.com >>> >> >>> To: "Marko Milivojevic" <mar...@ipexpert.com>, "edgar feliz" >>> >> >>> <ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" >>> >> >>> <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>, >>> >> >>> supp...@ipexpert.com, supp...@proctorlabs.com >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance on >>> >> >>> a >>> >> >>> session now >>> >> >>> Message-ID: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> <912523830-1317503026-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-571320870-@b11.c3.bise7.blackberry> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The support people at ipexpert have not been helpful in recent >>> >> >>> times >>> >> >>> all >>> >> >>> they tell me is that there are not ccie level support engineers, I >>> >> >>> just >>> >> >>> changed my hardware vpn to a 881 router last week so its been >>> >> >>> difficult to >>> >> >>> ascertain where the issue is coming from although I have done all >>> >> >>> I >>> >> >>> should >>> >> >>> do on my end and I had issues through out this morning, as I speak >>> >> >>> I >>> >> >>> have >>> >> >>> just started a new session, I will appreciate some support now. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Thanks marko >>> >> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry? Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high >>> >> >>> speed >>> >> >>> internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our >>> >> >>> experience >>> >> >>> centres >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >>> From: Marko Milivojevic <mar...@ipexpert.com> >>> >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 13:51:57 >>> >> >>> To: edgar feliz<ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Cc: Chris Martin<clm.c...@gmail.com>; >>> >> >>> pithog...@yahoo.com<pithog...@yahoo.com>; >>> >> >>> ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com<ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance on >>> >> >>> a >>> >> >>> session now >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We've had somewhat a perfect storm of multiple things go wrong. We >>> >> >>> should be operational right now and we have several support cases >>> >> >>> open >>> >> >>> with our ISPs and equipment vendors. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Please, get in touch with our support at supp...@ipexpert.com and >>> >> >>> supp...@proctorlabs.com with any issues that you may still be >>> >> >>> having. >>> >> >>> We have our entire support and technical team, including all the >>> >> >>> instructors working on maintaing our services up and running at >>> >> >>> the >>> >> >>> level you are all used to. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We sincerely apologize for the inconveniences. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 >>> >> >>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Mailto: mar...@ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >>> >> >>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:34, edgar feliz <ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> > To many people are having issue for it to be "operator error" >>> >> >>> > it's?definitely something on their end ISP etc. >>> >> >>> > EJF >>> >> >>> > ________________________________ >>> >> >>> > From: Chris Martin <clm.c...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> > To: pithog...@yahoo.com >>> >> >>> > Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> > Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:31 AM >>> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance >>> >> >>> > on a >>> >> >>> > session >>> >> >>> > now >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > You can open a case with support, that would be the quickest way >>> >> >>> > to >>> >> >>> > get >>> >> >>> > their help. ?Did you use IPE's configuration for hardware vpn? >>> >> >>> > ?What >>> >> >>> > type of >>> >> >>> > router are you using? ?Did you enter the commands to initiate >>> >> >>> > the >>> >> >>> > xauth? >>> >> >>> > Chris >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:58 AM, <pithog...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > I am on a current session now and I can't access proctorlabs via >>> >> >>> > hardware >>> >> >>> > vpn, my router can ping internet but my laptop connected to the >>> >> >>> > router >>> >> >>> > can't >>> >> >>> > access the internet so as to initiate hardware VPN . >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Please help, you can even connect to my laptop via team viewer . >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Experts kindly assist >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Pithohoil >>> >> >>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high >>> >> >>> > speed >>> >> >>> > internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our >>> >> >>> > experience >>> >> >>> > centres >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Message: 3 >>> >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:38:14 -0600 >>> >> >>> From: Robert Thomas <tho...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> To: Ken Wyan <kew...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Fractional MGCP >>> >> >>> Message-ID: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> <CAJ2RBBCFy_ncn+jb_rcw6fhaop_d30neBq8TJ9V8K6oWAP=d...@mail.gmail.com> >>> >> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> It's definetly not supported, since the MGCP protocol asume all >>> >> >>> channels >>> >> >>> are >>> >> >>> in service. You can use the service parameter to take them out of >>> >> >>> service >>> >> >>> from CUCM perspective. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> They do this to avoid allocating more DSP to bring all 24 >>> >> >>> channels, >>> >> >>> when >>> >> >>> you >>> >> >>> will only place a few calls, so they can save some bucks on rack >>> >> >>> equipment. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Ken Wyan <kew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> > In IPX workbooks ; they limit number of channels just by >>> >> >>> > pri-group >>> >> >>> > timeslots 1-5,24 service mgcp command only. ( I didn't go >>> >> >>> > through >>> >> >>> > all >>> >> >>> > the >>> >> >>> > solutions yet , but I have seen this few times so far) >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > But I think fractional pri for MGCP is not supported by CUCM as >>> >> >>> > per >>> >> >>> > Cisco >>> >> >>> > documentation. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Somehow there's a way as below ( B chan maintenance & status >>> >> >>> > poll ). >>> >> >>> > https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/97578 ( not an official >>> >> >>> > cisco >>> >> >>> > document) >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > For CCIE scope , does IPX way is enough? But it will not do the >>> >> >>> > required >>> >> >>> > job. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Wyan >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please >>> >> >>> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> Robert >>> >> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> >> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> >> >>> URL: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> </archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20111001/1a4bd8ce/attachment-0001.html> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Message: 4 >>> >> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 21:47:39 -0700 >>> >> >>> From: Rrcrumm <rrcr...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> To: "pithog...@yahoo.com" <pithog...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" >>> >> >>> <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>, >>> >> >>> "supp...@proctorlabs.com" <supp...@proctorlabs.com>, >>> >> >>> "supp...@ipexpert.com" <supp...@ipexpert.com> >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance on >>> >> >>> a >>> >> >>> session now >>> >> >>> Message-ID: <8ae23c19-0158-4a7d-881d-48613d664...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Are you consoled onto the router? You need to do a command from >>> >> >>> the >>> >> >>> CLI >>> >> >>> to VPN in. O can't remember it offhand but it us something like, >>> >> >>> IPSec >>> >> >>> VPN >>> >> >>> client ezvpn connect, then the Cauthen command. Below you said you >>> >> >>> computer >>> >> >>> can't reach the Internet. You should use the router CLI. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Hth >>> >> >>> Randall >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Oct 1, 2011, at 2:00 PM, pithog...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> > The support people at ipexpert have not been helpful in recent >>> >> >>> > times >>> >> >>> > all they tell me is that there are not ccie level support >>> >> >>> > engineers, >>> >> >>> > I just >>> >> >>> > changed my hardware vpn to a 881 router last week so its been >>> >> >>> > difficult to >>> >> >>> > ascertain where the issue is coming from although I have done >>> >> >>> > all I >>> >> >>> > should >>> >> >>> > do on my end and I had issues through out this morning, as I >>> >> >>> > speak I >>> >> >>> > have >>> >> >>> > just started a new session, I will appreciate some support now. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Thanks marko >>> >> >>> > Sent from my BlackBerry? Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high >>> >> >>> > speed >>> >> >>> > internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our >>> >> >>> > experience >>> >> >>> > centres >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> >>> > From: Marko Milivojevic <mar...@ipexpert.com> >>> >> >>> > Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 13:51:57 >>> >> >>> > To: edgar feliz<ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> > Cc: Chris Martin<clm.c...@gmail.com>; >>> >> >>> > pithog...@yahoo.com<pithog...@yahoo.com>; >>> >> >>> > ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com<ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> >>> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance >>> >> >>> > on a >>> >> >>> > session now >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > We've had somewhat a perfect storm of multiple things go wrong. >>> >> >>> > We >>> >> >>> > should be operational right now and we have several support >>> >> >>> > cases >>> >> >>> > open >>> >> >>> > with our ISPs and equipment vendors. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Please, get in touch with our support at supp...@ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > and >>> >> >>> > supp...@proctorlabs.com with any issues that you may still be >>> >> >>> > having. >>> >> >>> > We have our entire support and technical team, including all the >>> >> >>> > instructors working on maintaing our services up and running at >>> >> >>> > the >>> >> >>> > level you are all used to. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > We sincerely apologize for the inconveniences. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > -- >>> >> >>> > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 >>> >> >>> > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Mailto: mar...@ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >>> >> >>> > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:34, edgar feliz <ejfeli...@yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> To many people are having issue for it to be "operator error" >>> >> >>> >> it's definitely something on their end ISP etc. >>> >> >>> >> EJF >>> >> >>> >> ________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> From: Chris Martin <clm.c...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> To: pithog...@yahoo.com >>> >> >>> >> Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> >> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:31 AM >>> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] I need hardware Vpn assistance >>> >> >>> >> on a >>> >> >>> >> session >>> >> >>> >> now >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> You can open a case with support, that would be the quickest >>> >> >>> >> way to >>> >> >>> >> get >>> >> >>> >> their help. Did you use IPE's configuration for hardware vpn? >>> >> >>> >> What >>> >> >>> >> type of >>> >> >>> >> router are you using? Did you enter the commands to initiate >>> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >>> >> xauth? >>> >> >>> >> Chris >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:58 AM, <pithog...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I am on a current session now and I can't access proctorlabs >>> >> >>> >> via >>> >> >>> >> hardware >>> >> >>> >> vpn, my router can ping internet but my laptop connected to the >>> >> >>> >> router >>> >> >>> >> can't >>> >> >>> >> access the internet so as to initiate hardware VPN . >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Please help, you can even connect to my laptop via team viewer >>> >> >>> >> . >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Experts kindly assist >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Pithohoil >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my BlackBerry? Smartphone, from Etisalat. Enjoy high >>> >> >>> >> speed >>> >> >>> >> internet service with Etisalat easy net, available at all our >>> >> >>> >> experience >>> >> >>> >> centres >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> >> training, >>> >> >>> >> please >>> >> >>> >> visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> >> training, >>> >> >>> >> please >>> >> >>> >> visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> >> training, >>> >> >>> >> please >>> >> >>> >> visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab >>> >> >>> > training, >>> >> >>> > please visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> >>> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Message: 5 >>> >> >>> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 11:41:59 +0530 >>> >> >>> From: Ken Wyan <kew...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] PREDOT DDI vs NANP:PREDOT DDI >>> >> >>> Message-ID: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> <CAPBg9B+pcTZrpNhLHpHSH73=3czvmlokhpjypz91cycn+u9...@mail.gmail.com> >>> >> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Hi Experts, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I want to strip digits of called number from CUCM (outgoing from >>> >> >>> CUCM). >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> PREDOT DDI option is not available in Route-List / Route-Group >>> >> >>> level >>> >> >>> (unlike >>> >> >>> in route pattern). >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> If we don't have NANP & want to strip predot-digits at route-group >>> >> >>> level >>> >> >>> what is the option? IPX Solutions just use NANP:PREDOT DDI ; but I >>> >> >>> have a >>> >> >>> doubt. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Ken >>> >> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> >> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> >> >>> URL: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> </archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20111002/d99a724b/attachment.html> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> CCIE_Voice mailing list >>> >> >>> CCIE_Voice@onlinestudylist.com >>> >> >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> End of CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 68, Issue 9 >>> >> >>> ***************************************** >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >>> >> > please >>> >> > visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >> > >>> >> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> >> > www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
