Sign up
Vonage Forum Menu
The Vonage Forums
Vonage VoIP Forum
Vonage Forum Archive
Vonage Canada
Vonage UK
Vonage Stock
Fax, Tivo & Alarms
Hard Wiring
Number Transfer
V-Phone & SoftPhone
VoIP Feature Request
Vonage TV Ads
International Rates
Forum Suggestions
Report a Bug
The Cafeteria
Forums Archive
All Vonage News
Vonage In The News
Press Releases
Forum Digest
News Archives
Vonage Sign Up Info
Vonage Features
Vonage Area Codes
Vonage FAQ
Vonage Reviews
VoIP Speed Test
Vonage Toolbar
Network Setup
Wiring & Installation
Vonage 911
Business Account
VoIP Acronyms
VoIP Advertising
Wi-Fi Phone
Contact Support
Member Registration
Member Login
Member List
Your Account
Private Message
Forum Faqs
Recommend Us
Website Feedback
Forum Syndication
Forum Newsletter
Search Using Google
Search Forums
Search News
Forum Speed Dial
Vonage Forum
Forum Community
The Vonage Forums
Vonage VoIP Forum
Forum Archive
Vonage Canada
Vonage UK
Vonage Stock
Fax, Tivo & Alarms
Hard Wiring
Number Transfer
V-Phone & SoftPhone
Feature Request
Vonage On TV
International Rates
Forum Suggestions
Report A Bug
The Cafeteria
All Archives
Vonage News
All Vonage News
In The News
Press Releases
Forum Digest
News Archive
Vonage Information
Sign Up Info
Vonage Features
Area Codes
Vonage FAQ
Vonage Reviews
VoIP Speed Test
Vonage Toolbar
Network Setup
Wiring & Installation
Vonage 911
Business Account
VoIP Acronyms
VoIP Advertising
Wi-Fi Phone
Contact Support
Member Services
Registration
Member Login
Member List
Your Account
Private Messages
Forum Faq's
Recommend Us
Website Feedback
RSS Syndication
Forum Newsletter
Search
Search Using Google
Search Forums
Search News
Vonage Forums
IPSec VPN Client and Motorola vt1000
Goto page
Previous
1
,
2
,
3
Next
Vonage® VoIP Forum - Vonage News, Reviews And Discussion
»
Vonage Forum Archive
Author
Message
knowsnearlyeverything
New Forum Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 2
Posted:
Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:35 am
Post subject: Re: IPSEC and the Motorola VT1005
mhren wrote:
I have the same problem but it appears that the problem is more due to an apparent lack of IPSEC passthrough support by the Motorola unit
Is this true?
My recollection is that the CISCO unit supports IPSEC Passthrough ......... can anyone confirm?
The Cisco ATA-186 only had a single ethernet port. Its Motorola equal is the VT1003. The Cisco ATA-188 had two ports that worked as a layer 2 switch (only supported on MAC address on the inside port). There is no Motorola equivalent. The Motorola VT1005 is a layer 3 router.
If you plug the WAN port of the VT1005 into your router (inside) it should function fine.
There is no need to worry about QoS Your ISP probably ignores the TOS bits sent by the unit anyway. (I'm kinda in the know on this subject) The only exceptions are 1) your ISP is a wireless provider using Motorola Canopy 2) you use a Motorola cable modem and your cable provider uses a Motorola CMTS. Even then the QoS is probably lost once the data hits your ISP's router.
Vern
(there are 10 types of people...those that understand binary and those that don't)
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:52 pm
Post subject: Re: IPSEC and the Motorola VT1005
I have some counter-information, knowsnearlyeverything. First, the VT1005 can be either a router or a bridge. I currently use it in bridge mode which is enabled when you uncheck the NAT/DHCP checkbox in the Moto configuration. What happens is that the PC port on the Moto now is on the cable/DSL modem's inside interface subnet. I have confirmed this by noting that in this config, both the Moto and my Linksys router (BEFW11S4 connected to the Moto PC port) both get a separate IP address from the ISP (RoadRunner).
In addition, all non-voice traffic is forwarded to the MAC address that is connected to the PC port - in my case, my Linksys. How do I know this? I operate a number of servers on my Win2K desktop plugged into the inside of the Linksys: PPTP VPN server, web server, SMTP server, VNC remote control server, SSH server. All work just fine.
A nice side-benefit of this config is that the Moto does its QOS thing which is VERY necessary, almost no mater what uplink bandwidth you have. The key thing to remember is that any upload of data from your home network can fill the uplink pipe and thus cause voice packets to be delayed or dropped. I have verified this to be a problem by starting an upload on my PC at the same time I am in a voice call with my cell phone. I ALWAYS hear severely distorted voice inbound to the cell phone exactly when the upload starts. My RoadRunner Internet service gives me about 384Kbps uplink, which I have confirmed with much testing. Making all the Internet uplink traffic go through the Moto greatly reduces or eliminates the distorted voice. I hear a light 1-second distortion when the upload starts now. This makes the Moto's QOS feature VERY desirable.
I should mention that my Moto is running 1.16d. The
Vonage
tech said that this rev fixes some IPSec and maybe PPTP pass-through problems. For me, it did indeed fix inbound PPTP pass-through and it now allows me to "hairpin" web sessions originated from an inside PC.
Now, on to reliability. So far, this config has been working for me for 3 days - no loss of voice or data service. HOORAY! Previous to 1.16d, I had the Moto behind my Linksys which was good for voice reliability but sucked for outbound voice quality. I am very happy now.
Bob
knowsnearlyeverything wrote:
mhren wrote:
I have the same problem but it appears that the problem is more due to an apparent lack of IPSEC passthrough support by the Motorola unit
Is this true?
My recollection is that the CISCO unit supports IPSEC Passthrough ......... can anyone confirm?
The Cisco ATA-186 only had a single ethernet port. Its Motorola equal is the VT1003. The Cisco ATA-188 had two ports that worked as a layer 2 switch (only supported on MAC address on the inside port). There is no Motorola equivalent. The Motorola VT1005 is a layer 3 router.
If you plug the WAN port of the VT1005 into your router (inside) it should function fine.
There is no need to worry about QoS Your ISP probably ignores the TOS bits sent by the unit anyway. (I'm kinda in the know on this subject) The only exceptions are 1) your ISP is a wireless provider using Motorola Canopy 2) you use a Motorola cable modem and your cable provider uses a Motorola CMTS. Even then the QoS is probably lost once the data hits your ISP's router.
Vern
(there are 10 types of people...those that understand binary and those that don't)
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: IPSEC and the Motorola VT1005
By the way, outbound Cisco VPN Client IPSec works fine for me.
Bob
bobbabai wrote:
I have some counter-information, knowsnearlyeverything.
knowsnearlyeverything
New Forum Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 2
Posted:
Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:50 pm
Post subject: Re: IPSEC and the Motorola VT1005
bobbabai wrote:
]I have some counter-information, knowsnearlyeverything.
I stand corrected. After clearing some ARP tables and booting the Moto, I found that bridge mode really does work. In fact, it's a full bridge instead of the single MAC like the ATA-188.
In bridge mode, with the Moto between my PIX and ISP, my PIX still fires tunnels fine. I haven't tried firing VPN's through the thing in router mode. Should work fine so long as only one tunnel is fired at a time (More than 1 pc firing tunnels at the same time almost never works behind NAT routers that cost less than $500).
Interestingly enough, the Moto will not pull an IP address from my PIX at home...works fine on the PIX at the office (same IOS). That makes it pretty much impossible for me to plug it in behind my PIX. I'll investigate that more later.
bobbabai wrote:
]In addition, all non-voice traffic is forwarded to the MAC address that is connected to the PC port - in my case, my Linksys.
Sure it is. If the Moto is in router mode that's where the MAC address stops. In router mode, your ISP only sees the WAN MAC address of your Moto. The voice traffic is still tagged with ToS bits. The problem is that layer 2 switches (like the one your ISP uses) have to be configured to prioritize traffic based on the ToS bit presented. Also, once the traffic hits a router, ToS bits are usually stripped.
To make a short story long...Using the Moto for QoS will help while you're downloading or uploading, but will probably do nothing about your neighbor's downloading/uploading (if you have a teenager in the house, this is still a big deal, especially if you only have 128K service). I'll also add that the default ToS bits for the Cisco ATA-18x are the same as the Moto, but the Cisco was tunable.
bobbabai wrote:
]My RoadRunner Internet service gives me about 384Kbps uplink
I win...mine is 12Mb down 5Mb up...now if I could only upgrade from Win98.
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:49 am
Post subject:
True, everything you say. But by far the biggest issue with bandwidth for almost everyone is going to be the limited upstream bandwdth, regardless of what other people in your neighborhood are doing and whether your ISP does priority queueing for voice at layer 2 on its switches. And that is the problem that priority queueing on the Moto solves - always giving voice priority over normal data on the uplink.
Bob
gfoulks
Vonage Forum Master
Joined: Jan 18, 2004
Posts: 243
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:45 am
Post subject:
Message to all.... Put your ATA behind your routers... problem solved! QOS doesn't really do anything for your calls. I've run with the ATA behind my router since I've joined and have never had a single issue with quality of service. I've been on a called and have downloaded some large files at the same time I was connected to my office via VPN and was connected to my office PC via PCAnywhere and never once had a problem with my phone call.
The only times I had problems with my ATA was when I tried to run it in front of my router. Seems it wasn't able to handle the IP floods it would get being connected directly to the internet.
Greg
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:21 pm
Post subject:
Try UPLOADING files, gfoulks. That's when the QOS problem is noticed, when your site is sending lots of traffic. The problem is repeatable, every single time.
When you are downloading, chances are that your local Internet link has more downstream bandwidth than at the worst point in the rest of the path of your download. Thus, voice traffic to you is seldom lost.
Bob
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:23 pm
Post subject:
One more piece of info: the garbled won't be heard by you - it'll be heard by the person you are talking to.
Bob
gfoulks
Vonage Forum Master
Joined: Jan 18, 2004
Posts: 243
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:09 pm
Post subject:
Upload all of the time. When I'm at home I need to move large files Wav files to pc at the office. The largest file I've uploaded was 500 mb and I never had a problem with voice quality nor anything reported from those on the other end.
bobbabai
Full Forum Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 66
Posted:
Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:51 pm
Post subject:
Cool! I think you're lucky. By the way, what is the upstream bandwidth of your internet service?
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
Vonage® VoIP Forum - Vonage News, Reviews And Discussion
»
Vonage Forum Archive
Goto page
Previous
1
,
2
,
3
Next
Jump to:
Select a forum
Vonage® VoIP Forums
----------------
Vonage
Vonage Forum Archive
Vonage Canada
Vonage UK
Vonage Stock
Fax - Tivo - Alarms
Hard Wiring - Installation
LNP – Local Number Portability
Vonage V-Phone & SoftPhone
VoIP Feature Wish List
Vonage TV Commercials
International Rates
Forum Suggestions - Open Topics
----------------
The Cafeteria - Any Non Vonage Topic
Forum Suggestions - Comments
Report A Forum Bug
You
cannot
post new topics in this forum
You
cannot
reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot
edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot
delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot
vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours