[asterisk-users] [OT] switches
Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is: http://support.netgear.com/product/fs116 Is this a reasonable choice? Would I be wrong in thinking that most any Fast Ethernet switch would be fine for Asterisk? thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
Hi, For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-M4100-D10-POE-Ethernet-Managed/dp/B00AUEYX0Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1424462577&sr=8-3&keywords=netgear+poe and Gigabit all ports http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-ProSAFE-GS110TPv2-Gigabit-GS110TP-200NAS/dp/B00LW9A328/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1424462577&sr=8-5&keywords=netgear+poe -Harry On 02/20/2015 12:58 PM, thufir wrote: Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is: http://support.netgear.com/product/fs116 Is this a reasonable choice? Would I be wrong in thinking that most any Fast Ethernet switch would be fine for Asterisk? thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: > For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a > minimum, and vlan support if possible. thanks for the recomendations :) -Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
Hello, > Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch > > For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 > port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? > > The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is: > > http://support.netgear.com/product/fs116 > > > > Is this a reasonable choice? Would I be wrong in thinking that most any > Fast Ethernet switch would be fine for Asterisk? Yes, this kind of switches would work. VLAN and PoE support would obviously be better for convenience and security, but those are not mandatory. -- Bertrand LUPART -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: > For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a > minimum, and vlan support if possible. > > Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports > > http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-M4100-D10-POE-Ethernet-Managed/dp/ B00AUEYX0Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1424462577&sr=8-3&keywords=netgear+poe > > and > > Gigabit all ports Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? Small office, about five agents. thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On 02/24/2015 09:30 PM, Thufir wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: For a very basic setup it would work, but I would suggest POE at a minimum, and vlan support if possible. Gigabit uplinks, 10/100 for the poe ports http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-M4100-D10-POE-Ethernet-Managed/dp/ B00AUEYX0Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1424462577&sr=8-3&keywords=netgear+poe and Gigabit all ports Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? Small office, about five agents. If your only running the phone on the port, there is no need for GigE to the phone, and many phones only support 100Mbit. If your running phones with built in switches, a computer off the phone, and the phone supports GigE, the GigE will help keep the computer from overloading the total available bandwidth, but that is a very low chance of being an issue to start with. GigE all ports vs GigE for your server, and 100Mbit for your phones really is not a major difference, but the price difference between the two is also very small now days, and you are buying equipment with a reasonable service life (3-8 years in my opinion), so it's a balance between a few extra $ now, or waiting and seeing if you want it in the future, and paying some amount of money to swap it out. Most of the deployments I have done are with 100Mbit POE to the phones, and GigE for uplinks between switches and to the Asterisk server(s) -Harry thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
> Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd > start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that > (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? > > Small office, about five agents. Had to run some small offices with SIP hardphones and basic switches. Unless you are doing things wrong (network loops…), your switch shouldn't be an issue for such a small network. Depending on the voice codec you use, a VoIP conversation if a few kB/s, so don't be obsessed with GigE. Some hardphones have an integrated switch. Don't daisy chain phones this way, and be careful not to invert LAN and PC port. -- Bertrand LUPART -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Wednesday 25 Feb 2015, Thufir wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:05:56 -0700, Harry McGregor wrote: > > Hypothetical: lag, choppy connection, dropped calls. Of course, I'd > start with checking logs. How would I establish that the problem is that > (some) of the ports aren't gigabit? Any port with a hardware SIP phone plugged into it almost certainly won't be gigabit :) Anyway, an uncompressed (A-law or micro-law) voice connection is only using 64 000 bits per second. Compressed formats use even less bandwidth. The SIP signalling adds a bit of an overhead, but not much. That's probably why most SIP phones have only 100 or even 10 meg ports. > Small office, about five agents. To be honest, you'll probably be fine with a £9.99, 8-port TP-link switch -- but then you'll need power packs on all your phones (we power ours this way, and find it helps to reinforce the concept of the phones being unlike analogue POTS phones). There will already be mains there for the computers and monitors. If you want a PoE switch specifically to remove the need for a power pack on each phone, just add up your requirements for power and ports; double them, to allow for the future; then find switches that meet these minimum requirements, and buy the cheapest-but-one. The limiting factor with a switch carrying IP telephony traffic is not bandwidth, but routing table entries; and even cheap switches nowadays will usually take 1024 entries, if not 4096. -- AJS Note: Originating address only accepts e-mail from list! If replying off- list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot co dot uk . -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, A J Stiles wrote: The limiting factor with a switch carrying IP telephony traffic is not bandwidth, but routing table entries; and even cheap switches nowadays will usually take 1024 entries, if not 4096. Are you referring to the MAC CAM table? Saying 'routing table' and 'switch' in the same sentence seems confusing. Do VOIP devices take more table entries than other Ethernet devices? I.e. more than 1? -- Thanks in advance, - Steve Edwards sedwa...@sedwards.com Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000 -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On 02/25/2015 09:28 AM, Steve Edwards wrote: On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, A J Stiles wrote: The limiting factor with a switch carrying IP telephony traffic is not bandwidth, but routing table entries; and even cheap switches nowadays will usually take 1024 entries, if not 4096. Are you referring to the MAC CAM table? Saying 'routing table' and 'switch' in the same sentence seems confusing. Do VOIP devices take more table entries than other Ethernet devices? I.e. more than 1? No, and if you have 1024 MAC addresses behind a "cheap" switch, you get what you deserve. j -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
If your phones support PoE, I have had huge success with Zyxel: http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00 5GRETMM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296572&sr=8-3&keywords=zyxel+poe If you want to go even cheaper, I have successfully used these as well: http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-8-Port-100Mbps-Switch-TPE-S44/dp/B000QYEN 1W/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296706&sr=8-10&keywords=poe+8-port Brian Franklin NTG, Inc. - "Problem Solved" -Original Message- From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of thufir Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:58 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is: http://support.netgear.com/product/fs116 Is this a reasonable choice? Would I be wrong in thinking that most any Fast Ethernet switch would be fine for Asterisk? thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users - This email was processed through Xeams to filter junk messages. If you feel this message has been tagged incorrectly, you can change its category by clicking the link below. Click here http://spam.ntginc.net:5272/FrontController?operation=mbeu&f=1_-150_ 20150220_1643960.eml&chkBayesian=1&pr=1&mt=1&ma=s to mark email as junk. - -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:33:13 -0500, Brian Franklin wrote: > If your phones support PoE, > > I have had huge success with Zyxel: > http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00 > 5GRETMM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296572&sr=8-3&keywords=zyxel+poe > > If you want to go even cheaper, I have successfully used these as well: > http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-8-Port-100Mbps-Switch-TPE-S44/dp/B000QYEN > 1W/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296706&sr=8-10&keywords=poe+8-port > > > Brian Franklin NTG, Inc. - "Problem Solved" This is the router/modem gateway the ISP supplied: http://www.cisco.com/web/consumer/support/modem_DPC3825.html When I connect one of these switches to the router, that doesn't create a double-NAT problem? thanks, Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On 22/03/15 03:03, thufir wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:33:13 -0500, Brian Franklin wrote: > >> If your phones support PoE, >> >> I have had huge success with Zyxel: >> http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00 >> 5GRETMM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296572&sr=8-3&keywords=zyxel+poe >> >> If you want to go even cheaper, I have successfully used these as well: >> http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-8-Port-100Mbps-Switch-TPE-S44/dp/B000QYEN >> 1W/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296706&sr=8-10&keywords=poe+8-port >> >> >> Brian Franklin NTG, Inc. - "Problem Solved" > > > This is the router/modem gateway the ISP supplied: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/consumer/support/modem_DPC3825.html > > When I connect one of these switches to the router, that doesn't create a > double-NAT problem? > No, ethernet switch works at lower / physical / MAC layer, NAT is 'above' that; so as long as everything is OK with your TCP/IP settings everywhere, a switch is entirely transparent to TCP/IP (or generally, when it's encapsulated into MAC traffic). All that happens at a level totally transparent to the TCP/IP stack In a way, an Ethernet Switch is /the/ network near you, your cables are 'just' interconnects. HTH, el es > > thanks, > > Thufir > > -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
Remember that that zyxel 16 port switch is only 8 poe ports. If your phones are 802.3af or 802.3at, you could look at the ubiquiti line of switches. On Mar 13, 2015 9:34 PM, "Brian Franklin" wrote: > If your phones support PoE, > > I have had huge success with Zyxel: > http://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-ES1100-16P-16-Port-Ethernet-Unmanaged/dp/B00 > 5GRETMM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296572&sr=8-3&keywords=zyxel+poe > > If you want to go even cheaper, I have successfully used these as well: > http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-8-Port-100Mbps-Switch-TPE-S44/dp/B000QYEN > 1W/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1426296706&sr=8-10&keywords=poe+8-port > > > Brian Franklin > NTG, Inc. - "Problem Solved" > > -Original Message- > From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com > [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of thufir > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:58 PM > To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com > Subject: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches > > Pardon, this might be off-topic. I'm reading: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_switch > > For a setup of ~5 agents, would I be wrong in thinking that a generic 16 > port unmanaged switch would fit the bill? > > The first model to come up for me in an Amazon search is: > > http://support.netgear.com/product/fs116 > > > > Is this a reasonable choice? Would I be wrong in thinking that most any > Fast Ethernet switch would be fine for Asterisk? > > > > thanks, > > Thufir > > > -- > _ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: >http://www.asterisk.org/hello > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > - > This email was processed through Xeams to filter junk messages. > If you feel this message has been tagged incorrectly, you can > change its category by clicking the link below. > Click here > http://spam.ntginc.net:5272/FrontController?operation=mbeu&f=1_-150_ > 20150220_1643960.eml&chkBayesian=1&pr=1&mt=1&ma=s to mark email as junk. > - > > -- > _ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: >http://www.asterisk.org/hello > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:54 +, Lukasz Sokol wrote: > No, ethernet switch works at lower / physical / MAC layer, NAT is > 'above' > that; > so as long as everything is OK with your TCP/IP settings everywhere, > a switch is entirely transparent to TCP/IP (or generally, when it's > encapsulated into MAC traffic). so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning addresses. -Thufir -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
> so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP > address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning > addresses. Switches have a MAC table that keeps track of which MAC addresses are on which ports. That's how they decide where to route packets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model-- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, thufir wrote: so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning addresses. The 'endpoint' (pc, softphone, mobile, desk set, etc.) 'finds' the server's IP address when: ) You configure the endpoint with the IP address or host name of the server. This happens either by a web page you fill out on the endpoint or a configuration file that is downloaded by TFTP, FTP, HTTP, etc. ) You configure SRV records in your DNS. I think the old IAXy did some sort of discovery on port , but I don't remember if it was device or server discovery. -- Thanks in advance, - Steve Edwards sedwa...@sedwards.com Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000 -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] [OT] switches
On 23/03/15 16:37, thufir wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:54 +, Lukasz Sokol wrote: > >> No, ethernet switch works at lower / physical / MAC layer, NAT is >> 'above' >> that; >> so as long as everything is OK with your TCP/IP settings everywhere, >> a switch is entirely transparent to TCP/IP (or generally, when it's >> encapsulated into MAC traffic). > > > so how does a client pc find the server if there's no NAT? by IP > address?? That makes no sense, to me, if the switch isn't assigning > addresses. > > > -Thufir > > +1 to what Kevin said, and there is a protocol running on pretty much every ethernet based network, named ARP : Address Resolution Protocol, by which ALL the clients learn ALL the surrounding clients (including the one that is the GATEWAY) MAC/IP combinations. Simplified, the encapsulation of ethernet packets is sort-of | MAC Header | IP Header | Packet |[MAC Source address][MAC Destination Address]|[Source IP][Destination IP]|[The rest of packet] [order and number of fields not necessarily real-life, for illustration purposes only] now the MAC source/dest fields are added AND REMOVED as needed when the packet passes from card to computer/router, then from computer/router to card; as the MAC fields don't make sense in wider area networks; 'dumb' switches don't participate/snoop in ARP, only store a table of what card MAC address they encountered on source MAC field of packets coming from that interconnect manageable switches /can/ participate and filter in the ARP process if told so and have such option. HTH, el es -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
