IP Office 500 Remote Phone not registering properly

[FisherPricePhone]

I've been trying to set up a remote H323 extension with IP Office 500 v1 Release 8 through a Cisco 837 at the IPO side. The phone allows me to login and I can see the registration process occurring. All I get afterwards is the word "Phone" in the top left hand corner of the screen. I've carefully checked the port forwarding and all is in order. Also Stun seems to have configured itself for port restricted cone NAT.

Checking the monitor debug, I notice that H225 is having errors that result in phone type not being recognised and this proceeds to unregister the phone. I've trawled through the previous posts on the remote phone issues but I can't seem to bottom out this one. Does anyone have any thoughts around it?

Thanks,

FisherPricePhone



It's all just paper cups and bits of string!!!!!!!!!

CCNA, CCDA, ACIS - Implement IP Office, ACSS - Implement IP Office, Convergence + etc...

 

[cg11]

Are you creating a VPN tunnel between 2 networks? Never seen an H323 device work with just a router on the host (IPO) end.

Please give more detail, what hardware is on the remote end?

 

[tlpeter]

Hi FisherPricePhone,

We have seen this issue on the Cisco but we never found the problem.
I would love to hear the solution.

cg11, the remote qworker option is new in 8.0.

BAZINGA!

I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!

 

[amriddle01]

You could be fighting a loosing battle, it's been poorly implemented by Avaya, while sometimes it can work it requires way more intervention than should be required

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

better off turning the handset into a VPN phone and using the cisco as a vpn gateway for it.

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[FisherPricePhone]

Hi, I'm going to keep trying to figure this one out but I think AVAYA need to start trying to go with the standards and start using SIP endpoints as standard instead of H323. It's going to be far easier to troubleshoot. The reason I'm not going with the VPN option is because it's already in place but the 10-15% overhead is throttling Iback an already congested connection. This was going to be an alternative.

Just for information, I still had the problem when the IOS firewall was disabled so we can rule that out. I did intermittently get h225 errors from monitor indicating that the messages were garbled.

I can't really sell this with confidence at present as there are a shed load of Cisco routers and firewalls within my estate. I expect most resellers are in the same boat.

I can still go with the VPN option though. Again, if anyone has any thoughts on this one, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Fisher

It's all just paper cups and bits of string!!!!!!!!!

CCNA, CCDA, ACIS - Implement IP Office, ACSS - Implement IP Office, Convergence + etc...

 

[tlpeter]

If vpn is not an option because of the connection then remote worker won't work either!
Believe me, the Cisco is still the problem and blocked something.
We had the same problem and managed to pass the Cisco and it worked straight away.

BAZINGA!

I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!

 

[FisherPricePhone]

Peter,

The VPN option works but latency causes occassional voice quality issues. The Cisco equipment may well be blocking something, my hunch being the type of NAT in use.

Obviously, we need to test the new remote worker solution or we could run into problems selling it. My point was merely that SIP would allow us to troubleshoot the situation more effectively. Without meaningful debug output from the monitor, it's a lot of guesswork.

In your previous post, you mention "pass the Cisco". Did you use another device or find a configuration change that worked?

Thanks,

Al

It's all just paper cups and bits of string!!!!!!!!!

CCNA, CCDA, ACIS - Implement IP Office, ACSS - Implement IP Office, Convergence + etc...

 

[tlpeter]

Hi,

Yes we connected a different type of "router on our modem so we did bypass the Cisco.


BAZINGA!

I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!