| |
to MitzyG
Re: Intermittent QOS Drops!Are you sure you have your TVs connected directly to the RG and not through your router? |
|
| |
MitzyG
Anon
2013-Mar-19 6:11 pm
I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK?
Also...the field manager came by to talk to me and I admit, I was unhappy. But in the process he confirmed that the TV does take priority (in which case, it should be higher priority on the RG and I'm not sure moving it back will do much, particularly because the vonage device is on the RG so the bottleneck isn't at my router). He said that not using Uverse tv is highly likely to eliminate the vonage problem. So I think that's what I'll do. HMPH! Not pleased at all...and I hope I don't have some sort of binding agreement...for service - I need to consult with them to find out. |
|
 rolandeCertifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
Cisco Meraki MR42
|
said by MitzyG :I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK? I have tons of devices connected to my home network including the set top boxes. You can use a crossover cable to plug another switch into the RG and add plenty of ports. In my case I have one port connected to a VLAN for just my set top boxes for the TVs and another plugged into a VLAN going to my home internal router. Everything else sits behind that router that acts as a zone based firewall. 
My home network diagram
|
|
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66
|
to MitzyG
said by MitzyG :I do have them going through my router, not the RG. I have two TVs, one router, and a phone. That's 4 ports. The router only has 4. So what if someone had another TV? EEK?
Also...the field manager came by to talk to me and I admit, I was unhappy. But in the process he confirmed that the TV does take priority (in which case, it should be higher priority on the RG and I'm not sure moving it back will do much, particularly because the vonage device is on the RG so the bottleneck isn't at my router). He said that not using Uverse tv is highly likely to eliminate the vonage problem. So I think that's what I'll do. HMPH! Not pleased at all...and I hope I don't have some sort of binding agreement...for service - I need to consult with them to find out.
From what I heard: Your TVs should be separated from your devices such as Vonage and internet devices in the network. If both are on the same part of the network then the TVs will flood the other devices on the network. If you want them on the same thing then I think you need a switch that works with the TV's traffic. |
|
rolandeCertifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42
|
said by Darknessfall:From what I heard:
Your TVs should be separated from your devices such as Vonage and internet devices in the network. If both are on the same part of the network then the TVs will flood the other devices on the network. If you want them on the same thing then I think you need a switch that works with the TV's traffic.
The RG floods all ports with the TV video multicast streams. No matter how you connect the devices and the switches, there will be a point when the other latency sensitive traffic has to traverse a connection that is being flooded with the video. The key is that you need a switch that does not do input buffering to prevent head of line blocking and can appropriately groom the traffic in its interface output buffers to prevent the video packets from creating to much jitter and delay with smaller voice packets. |
|
| |
Incorrect. The RG will not send the IPTV multicast traffic out of one of its LAN ports if there is no receiver downwind of said port. The OP has caused their own VoIP problem by having receivers plugged into their router. Simply buying a dumb switch to use just for the receivers to isolate them should fix the problem. See » Network setup for U-verse or any other archived post on this forum on IGMP packet snooping. |
|
rolandeCertifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42
|
I can tell you that I witnessed multicast flooding out all ports on my RG for the past week. I verified the multicast mac addresses on the interfaces on my switch. I enabled IGMP snooping on my switch and cleaned it up.
The strange thing tonight is that I was just cleaning up dead config on my switch and removing some old VLANs and cleaned up my igmp snooping config. From before to after I noticed that the RG was no longer forwarding all the multicast traffic at my switch anymore. I'm not sure that the IGMP snooping on the RG is bulletproof. It may need a kick in the pants every now and then to stay honest. |
|
| |
What IOS did you use to get IGMPv3 working on a 3550 ? |
|
rolandeCertifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42
|
I'm running c3550-ipservicesk9-mz.122-44.SE6. The IGMPv3 functionality is supposedly limited. I could not find a complete list of what specifically is or is not supported. I do know that it supports the Fast Leave option.
Now that I "fixed" the Multicast flooding issue on the RG, I was able to do a Direct crossover from my 3725 router to the RG instead of passing through an isolated VLAN on my 3550. |
|
 joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null |
joako
Premium Member
2013-Mar-22 10:46 pm
I connect the TVs to the RG directly and then another router to a different RG port and no multicast flooding. If you go RG -> Switch without IGMPv3 -> STB then yes you will see multicast flooding on that 3rd party switch. |
|
rolandeCertifiable
MVM,
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX ARRIS BGW210-700
Cisco Meraki MR42
|
said by joako:If you go RG -> Switch without IGMPv3 snooping -> STB then yes you will see multicast flooding on that 3rd party switch.
If you want to expand the port capacity of your network and support Uverse TV service optimally on anything but the supplied RG, you should find a switch that supports IGMP snooping. It actually does not have to be IGMPv3 aware for it to work as expected. As long as it minimally supports IGMPv2 it should do the trick. There are lots of halfway decent Cisco switches on eBay for $50-200 that can easily fit the bill. |
|
