SCN on Wan Port of IPO

[clarkstyx18]

SCN on Wan Port of IPO


I need to connect site A Lan IP 192.168.11.x Phone Range 192.168.42.x
to site B with LAN IP 192.168.12.x Phone Range 192.168.41.x, both sides
are already connected to VPN. LAN 1 can ping LAN 2 vice versa.
The question is, instead of putting LAN IP and Phone IP on the same range,
can we do something like this.

Site A Wan IP --> 192.168.11.100 (same range as LAN A)
Site B Wan IP --> 192.168.12.100 (same range as LAN B)

Create IP Line for Site A with Site B Ip Address (will do the same for both)

Make IP Route for both sites..

Will this work?
**SCN licenses are already uploaded

 

[clarkstyx18]

Sorry bout that... 192.168.11.10 is nothing.. ill upload the config file in a few mins.. thank

 

[clarkstyx18]

ok, im posting the config file, please have a look

 

[AACon]

You need to remove your routes on both systems, and make new ones.

On Tasheel Barsha, you need a route of 192.168.10.0/255.255.255.0/192.168.11.1/LAN2, as well as a route for your LOCAL LAN1; 192.168.41.0/255.255.255.0/192.168.41.X/LAN1

On Tasheel, do the same type of thing. Delete the routes, and make one 192.168.11.0/255.255.255.0/192.168.10.1/LAN2, and one for your local, 192.168.42.0/255.255.255.0/192.168.42.X/LAN1

Replace the X in the local gateways with whatever it actually is...I sure hope you are *NOT* using the IP office as the gateways for any traffic. That is no bueno.

If that is done, and it *still* does not work, take a look at whatever device 192.168.11.1 and 192.168.10.1 is. It is PROBABLY blocking ports, or has some messed up routing.



-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[AACon]

Also, do yourself a favor, and get rid of those overlapping extensions. You're going to have conflicts everywhere.

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[clarkstyx18]

ok, I will do that, but one question, does routing of LAN1 necessary even though I am only using LAN2 for the H323 trunk?

 

[AACon]

On a flat network, no. Leave them out if you want.

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[montyzummer]

also get rid of direct media path.

APSS (SME)
ACSS (SME)
ACIS (UC)

 

[Bas1234]

Change the outgoing group ID (VoIP Line) from 1 into 11 on the Tasheel.cfg and remove all route execept the 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0/GW routes.

___________________________________________
It works! Now if only I could remember what I did...

Dain Bramaged (Avaya Search tool

http://tinyurl.com/bas1234

)
______________________________________

 

[clarkstyx18]

ok, I will try all of your suggestion and I will update you.. Thank you guys!

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

We will accept all forms of beer as payment for support

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[AACon]

Bas,
good call on the group ID's. I overlooked that as the group id's *auto increment* and someone would have had to manually change things to eff it up, but there ya go.

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[azrael2000]

Hello!

One other thing I found out... the hard way... is in your manager, under preferences -> discovery, make sure you put into IP Search Range the IP Addresses you want discovered.

Regards

 

[Bas1234]

@AACon, the auto increment is since release 7 before you needed to enter it manually on incomming and outgoing. The more things they do to make it easier for the engineers the more stupid bugs we get.

___________________________________________
It works! Now if only I could remember what I did...

Dain Bramaged (Avaya Search tool

http://tinyurl.com/bas1234

)
______________________________________

 

[AACon]

@Bas1234, yep, knew that. He's running 8.1, so, it should have been fine! Still wonder what the issue is. My guess...routers/switches.

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[Bas1234]

If hes changed those settings and it is still notworking then it's a network issue for sure.

___________________________________________
It works! Now if only I could remember what I did...

Dain Bramaged (Avaya Search tool

http://tinyurl.com/bas1234

)
______________________________________

 

[amriddle01]

BTW, AAcon you do need IP Routes for local LAN traffic i.e 192.168.42.0 it's local so isnt routed, you simply don't need those entries



"No problem monkey socks

 

[AACon]

On a flat network, he does not need routes, if nothing is being routed; devices can talk to each other on the LAN1 side without a router. He only really *needs* the route between the units so they can see eachother as they are on different subnets. The routes I provided would suffice, granted the rest of the network was up to snuff.

Routes on the LAN1 side would make things easier, however.

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[amriddle01]

I meant to say don't need

If your IPO is 192.168.42.1 on LAN 1 and 192.168.43.1 on LAN2/WAN then you don't need routes for either 192.168.42.0 or 192.168.43.0 not ever. It's a commonly held misconception on the IP Office that you do, I have seen loads of systems with them in and they simply aren't used. If you look in SSA it tells you they are directly connected networks and as such the routes aren't even checked.....but they don't hurt



"No problem monkey socks

 

[AACon]

Yeep. You only ever need routes...if you are...uh...routing...between subnets

-Austin
ACE: Implement IP Office

 

[mattKnight]

but the routers @10.1 and 11.1 need to route the LAN addresses i.e.the 192.168.41.0/24 and 192.168.42.0/24 ranges


Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.