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/I
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 t
> 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.
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
.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 set
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&ke
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 e
oun...@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 w
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
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
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 w
> 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. Un
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-
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/
B00AU
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:
>
> ht
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
--
_
-- Bandwi
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+
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/pro
18 matches
Mail list logo
