Doug Lytle wrote:
> Mik Cheez wrote:
>
>> Something is certainly wrong here. Can you check the netmask? I assume
>> you're just using a full class C, which would make the netmask
>>
We may have tracked it down. We started looking at the DNS issues that
Alexander mentioned and saw that
n
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] More fun but with Wireshark capture
>
> Alexander Lopez wrote:
> > Is it possible that the phones loaded a new Firmware or that the
> > configuration file has changed?
> >
> >
> No, they are the older IP300 and IP500s. They'
Alexander Lopez wrote:
> Is it possible that the phones loaded a new Firmware or that the
> configuration file has changed?
>
>
No, they are the older IP300 and IP500s. They're currently running
2.1.2.0078. I was going to move them up to the 2.2.0, but the firmware
won't work on these older
Mik Cheez wrote:
> Something is certainly wrong here. Can you check the netmask? I assume
> you're just using a full class C, which would make the netmask
>
That would be correct.
> 255.255.255.0. Also, should I assume the trace is being done on the
> Asterisk machine?
>
>
Yes
> Try
Something is certainly wrong here. Can you check the netmask? I assume
you're just using a full class C, which would make the netmask
255.255.255.0. Also, should I assume the trace is being done on the
Asterisk machine?
Try running a trace on all interfaces for port 5060:
]# tethereal -i an
Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: [asterisk-users] More fun but with Wireshark capture
>
> I've replaced the phone system and it still didn't make any difference
> with the phones bouncing. I've got a capture of a conversation
between
>
I've replaced the phone system and it still didn't make any difference
with the phones bouncing. I've got a capture of a conversation between
one of the phones and the phone system. It would appear that when the
drop out occurs, the phone does not respond. After several attempts,
the phone
