Cisco

Gandalf · November 11, 2003, 05:07:45 PM

A challenge.

We have a Cisco 2600 router with 4 adsl line cards whapped into the back.

Hanging off of this we have a video conference unit. Our isp has configured the router to load balance the outgoing bandwidth, and it works very well. We can dial remote locations at high speed and all is peachy.

The issue we have is incoming. For some reason the router is not allowing the call setup negotiation to occur. It connects ok, but after connecting the two vid conf units exchange video codecs etc to setup the call. This isn't happening.

Our isp and our vid conf support chap have tried everything they can think of. Even to the point of directly mapping all ports to the internal ip. No joy. Is there any peculiarity with the 2600 that could cause this? Is it H.323 compatible?

I can get the unit working as advertised by placing it on our leased line and giving it a real IP so the unit is fine. (I can also call it internally via netmeeting)

It seems odd that calling out is fine but calling in isn't working. It's now been escalated to Cisco as a possible fault, but I know there are a few on here that are familiar with these things and wondered if you've come across this issue before.

TeaLeaf · November 11, 2003, 07:25:10 PM

G-man, I'd suggest you have a chat to tugs, he's heavily into CISCO, so I'll ask him to post back here to see if it's that kinda thang that he's into.....

TL.

Gandalf · November 11, 2003, 07:45:25 PM

cheers TL, appreciated. I knew someone here knew about them.

Gandalf · November 13, 2003, 12:33:36 PM

I guess no one has come across this then. Oh well. I'll throw the 2600 in the bin.

Benny · November 13, 2003, 12:38:22 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Gandalf-LordOfJelly@Nov 13 2003, 12:33 PM
I guess no one has come across this then. Oh well. I'll throw the 2600 in the bin.

I haven't done the adsl 2600 stuff, but I'd be looking at the traffic coming in one path and going out another. The conversations wouldn't complete and you'd end up with nothing. Does it work if you take the load balancing off?

Gandalf · November 13, 2003, 12:45:18 PM

nope. tried that. even tried running it with all ports mapped to the internal ip.

just a thought, we have a block of 8 ips and the ip that the system is running on is the one that is normally used as the gateway ip. would that make a difference? (I didn't set the system up, our ISP done this)

Benny · November 13, 2003, 12:52:25 PM

Internet -------- firewall ------ Video thing?

The gateway inbound from tinternet is the one being NAT'd to the video thing?

draw me a picture.....

Gandalf · November 13, 2003, 01:00:41 PM

Intarweb-------2600(192.168.1.1 internal ip, GW for LAN)------VideoConf(192.168.1.30 LAN address, 212.***.***.1 WAN address)

As simple as that. As mentioned, we can call out with no problems at all, it's just incoming calls. They are connecting (I get a successful connect in the log), but the systems are not negotiating the required codecs to talk to each other. So the call just ends after a timeout for the negotiation.

May be related, but FTP doesn't work as well due to the load balancing. Keep getting a no route to host message. A real pain, but they're gonna fix that once we get the video working.

Benny · November 13, 2003, 01:07:34 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by Gandalf-LordOfJelly@Nov 13 2003, 01:00 PM
Intarweb-------2600(192.168.1.1 internal ip, GW for LAN)------VideoConf(192.168.1.30 LAN address, 212.***.***.1 WAN address)

As simple as that. As mentioned, we can call out with no problems at all, it's just incoming calls. They are connecting (I get a successful connect in the log), but the systems are not negotiating the required codecs to talk to each other. So the call just ends after a timeout for the negotiation.

May be related, but FTP doesn't work as well due to the load balancing. Keep getting a no route to host message. A real pain, but they're gonna fix that once we get the video working.

ok, assuming that your external appears as .1 (Check on shields up on grc.com) then I wouldn't trust it to use the same address for your VC.

Can you change it to an unused? If that is the case and you are port forwarding I wouldn't trust that either.

Can you mail the cisco config, blat the addresses for security. PM for my address. I'll look properly and pass it round here.

Gandalf · November 13, 2003, 01:23:00 PM

I don't have access to the cisco, I'll see if I can get the script from them.

Tutonic · November 13, 2003, 01:42:15 PM

Ask me in 3 years when i've finished my CISCO academy

Benny · November 13, 2003, 01:45:57 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by TuToNiC@Nov 13 2003, 01:42 PM
Ask me in 3 years when i've finished my CISCO academy

Don't do it, IT is the most unrewarding job you could possibly do. It pays bills and makes you popular with ladies, but that is it. oh hang on, I'm only half right.

Tutonic · November 13, 2003, 04:55:18 PM

Dont worry, I wasn't planning on paying any bills :norty:

Gh0st Face Killah · November 13, 2003, 06:16:18 PM

Looks like you struck out then Tut as it certainly doesn't make you popular with the ladies.

Gandy pm me all the details and some of the logs if you have them and i'll contact some of the cisco guys i used to work with, although tbh you are best off going down the cisco helpdesk route. Make sure you don't get the TAC in the phillipines as they are shite. Try after 1pm and get the guys in the states or ask to speak to the guys in brussels. They really do know their stuff.

Benny · November 14, 2003, 09:59:51 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Gh0st Face Killah@Nov 13 2003, 06:16 PM
speak to the guys in brussels.

heh heh heh, I misread that.......chortle, chortle