ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Time to gut the network - thoughts?

    IT Discussion
    network ubnt cisco wireless edgeswitch edgerouter
    11
    280
    33.2k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
      last edited by

      @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

      We do not know that. QoS at the VLAN level exists and is what most people assume is working.

      I thought that the issue was that he did not have QoS hitting the WAN. But he has no VoIP to the WAN, I had missed that part.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
        last edited by

        @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

        1. It most certainly can matter in the LAN. An office can have bursts traffic that can cause degradation of voice quality. It is not common though.

        Not on A LAN, on the meaning "this" LAN. He and I had discussed offline that he has no traffic that ever would trigger the QoS system.

        JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • JaredBuschJ
          JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

          @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

          1. It most certainly can matter in the LAN. An office can have bursts traffic that can cause degradation of voice quality. It is not common though.

          Not on A LAN, on the meaning "this" LAN. He and I had discussed offline that he has no traffic that ever would trigger the QoS system.

          In that case I agree that it is not needed in any fashion.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • JaredBuschJ
            JaredBusch @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

            @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

            @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

            I’m looking to redesign my network to get rid of the VLANs and make everything flat. In our previous discussions you cautioned against not putting the phones in their own VLAN – do I recall that correctly? Assuming I recall this correctly, what’s the reasoning behind that?

            I'll let you know their response.

            You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

            Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

            Time out for a second...
            JB says he doesn't do anything internal to the switches to setup/ensure, whatever you wanna call it, QoS. But that the handsets themselves set these tags themselves (and @scottalanmiller agreed with that).

            So my question is - do my switches honor those tags by default? Do VLANs make any difference in this? i.e. if a QoS tagged packet is on VLAN 2, and traffic on VLAN 1 is peaking the ports out, does the switch allow the QoS Tag on VLAN 2 to win out?

            or is the switch ignoring these packets unless the switch is specifically setup to honor them?

            Please keep in mind - I have ZERO SIP/DSCP traffic going out my WAN ports. All traffic is local on my network only.

            A point of note here is that DSCP is at the IP level and 802.1Q is at the VLAN level.

            These are totally different processes.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • DashrenderD
              Dashrender @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

              You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

              I want to make sure I fully understand why we can say without a doubt that QoS wasn't setup properly, or at least not optimally.

              Here's the current config

               hostname "Main Backbone HP 2824"
 snmp-server contact "Dash"
 snmp-server location "Building 1"
 ip default-gateway 192.168.1.1
ip routing
 ip zero-broadcast
 vlan 1
    name "DEFAULT_VLAN"
    untagged 2-17,19-23
    ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
    no untagged 1,18,24
    exit
 vlan 2
    name "VOICE"
    untagged 1
    ip address 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0
    qos priority 7
    tagged 3-20,24
    exit
 vlan 105
    name "WIRELESS"
    ip address 192.168.105.2 255.255.255.0
    tagged 2-21
    exit
 vlan 17
    name "IMAGING"
    untagged 18
    ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.240
    tagged 24
    exit
 fault-finder bad-driver sensitivity high
 fault-finder bad-transceiver sensitivity high
 fault-finder bad-cable sensitivity high
 fault-finder too-long-cable sensitivity high
 fault-finder over-bandwidth sensitivity high
 fault-finder broadcast-storm sensitivity high
 fault-finder loss-of-link sensitivity high
 fault-finder duplex-mismatch-HDx sensitivity high
 fault-finder duplex-mismatch-FDx sensitivity high

              I read the QoS under VLAN 2 to mean that all VLAN 2 traffic will have higher priority than any other VLAN. Considering only phones and the PBX are on VLAN 2, wouldn't this accomplish the goal of my vendor? If I'm correct in my understanding, it's not optimal, but it works.

              JaredBuschJ scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • JaredBuschJ
                JaredBusch @Dashrender
                last edited by

                @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

                I want to make sure I fully understand why we can say without a doubt that QoS wasn't setup properly, or at least not optimally.

                Here's the current config

                 hostname "Main Backbone HP 2824"
 snmp-server contact "Dash"
 snmp-server location "Building 1"
 ip default-gateway 192.168.1.1
ip routing
 ip zero-broadcast
 vlan 1
    name "DEFAULT_VLAN"
    untagged 2-17,19-23
    ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
    no untagged 1,18,24
    exit
 vlan 2
    name "VOICE"
    untagged 1
    ip address 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0
    qos priority 7
    tagged 3-20,24
    exit
 vlan 105
    name "WIRELESS"
    ip address 192.168.105.2 255.255.255.0
    tagged 2-21
    exit
 vlan 17
    name "IMAGING"
    untagged 18
    ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.240
    tagged 24
    exit
 fault-finder bad-driver sensitivity high
 fault-finder bad-transceiver sensitivity high
 fault-finder bad-cable sensitivity high
 fault-finder too-long-cable sensitivity high
 fault-finder over-bandwidth sensitivity high
 fault-finder broadcast-storm sensitivity high
 fault-finder loss-of-link sensitivity high
 fault-finder duplex-mismatch-HDx sensitivity high
 fault-finder duplex-mismatch-FDx sensitivity high

                I read the QoS under VLAN 2 to mean that all VLAN 2 traffic will have higher priority than any other VLAN. Considering only phones and the PBX are on VLAN 2, wouldn't this accomplish the goal of my vendor? If I'm correct in my understanding, it's not optimal, but it works.

                Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

                DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DashrenderD
                  Dashrender @JaredBusch
                  last edited by

                  @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                  Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

                  So the following is an incorrect assumption.

                  @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                  You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

                  Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

                  JaredBuschJ scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • JaredBuschJ
                    JaredBusch @Dashrender
                    last edited by

                    @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                    @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                    Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

                    So the following is an incorrect assumption.

                    @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                    You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

                    Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

                    Correct. You have proper VLAN QoS setup. You do not technically have proper QoS on your voice traffic though. It is a distinction, but one that is honestly irrelevant.

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                      last edited by

                      @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                      I read the QoS under VLAN 2 to mean that all VLAN 2 traffic will have higher priority than any other VLAN. Considering only phones and the PBX are on VLAN 2, wouldn't this accomplish the goal of my vendor? If I'm correct in my understanding, it's not optimal, but it works.

                      Isn't the goal to prioritize voice traffic, not just "any" traffic on a voice network?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                        last edited by

                        @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                        Correct. You have proper VLAN QoS setup. You do not technically have proper QoS on your voice traffic though. It is a distinction, but one that is honestly irrelevant.

                        Right. It's QoS, just not the right QoS. And it doesn't matter because you have no need for QoS at all.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                          last edited by

                          @Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                          @JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                          Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

                          So the following is an incorrect assumption.

                          @scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

                          You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

                          Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

                          No, it's correct. They didn't do their jobs properly. They neither did the sensible, cost effective thing for the business, which would have been to not have a VLAN at all. Nor did they properly do QoS for your VoIP traffic.

                          So no matter what, they didn't set up QoS correctly for you.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote -1
                          • 1
                          • 2
                          • 3
                          • 4
                          • 5
                          • 13
                          • 14
                          • 2 / 14
                          • First post
                            Last post