jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
1 edit | [Other Providers] AT&T CallVantage problems
I just setup my AT&T callvantage service last night. I am happy with the voice quality of the service but I have issues with putting the TA before my router since all my traffic now goes through the TA and then my router. When I am on the phone my speed tests drop from about 2900 to 200-300. I ran 3 different speed tests this afternoon and got right at 3000 all three times , while I was on the phone just now I only got around 250. Last night while I was on the phone two different computers could not contact their mail servers until I hung the phone up. I can get another Ip address from Time Warner for $10 a month which combined with the cost of callvantage will still be $30 or more a month cheaper than my currents POTS line even after 6 months when AT&T goes upto regular price. This is my current setup- Cable modem ->TA->SMC 2404WBR Router->Switch- my MAC and pc fileserver are connected to the router along with a 3Com 10/100 Switch which serves a print server and connection for the PC in the next room. I want to put the switch after the modem then plug the TA and router into their own ports on the switch and let them each get their own IP from Time Warner. Has anynone else run into the slow down problem? And does anyone think my idea will help? |
|
montee4
Premium
join:2004-02-15
Chicago, IL
| What is stopping you from not putting the TA behind the router? I know ATT wants it in front, but have you tried putting it behind and compare the results?
I have Vonage and I had my TA in front of the router and was expierencing some similar issues. Once I moved it behind my router (WRT54G) everything works great. I have also noticed that when I am uploading a file and then call someone, the file upload slows down a bit so my call will go through and be clear, which is what I expect, however it does not slow nearly as much as you are speaking of.
Remeber if you put it behind, there are probably some ports you need to forward. |
|
jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
| According to the AT&T documentation and some things I read on here, the TA will not work behind the router. AT&T says the TA will not work with private ip addresses. The TA gets my Time Warner IP and then gives the router an IP since it has a dhcp server built in to the TA. Everything after the router gets it's IP from the router, but could get it's IP from the TA if I turned off DHCP in the router but I am not sure if that will create other issues. |
|
montee4
Premium
join:2004-02-15
Chicago, IL
| I imagine ATT says this so they don't have to try to support the hundreds of routes out there. Some companies like Vonage have tried to do this and have done well, but I imagine it keeps their tech support guys busy more so than if they said just put the TA in front of the router.
Has anyone tried putting the ATT TA behind the router? I don't see why this couldn't work, since the router will send the correct data to and from the TA, unless there is some technical limitation that they have coded in the TA. |
|
Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA | reply to jsbaker
The current TA does not work behind a router. AT&T uses MGCP instead of SIP like most of the other providers. They are supposed to come out with a TA this summer that will work behind a NAT router. |
|
PhoneBoy
I Am
join:2002-01-02
Gig Harbor, WA
| The MGCP phone I am using from Broadvox (»www.phoneboy.com/bin/view.pl/Per···xIPPhone) seems to work behind NAT okay. I have made no specific effort to configure my network to support this phone. Sounds to me like AT&T is just being lazy.
-- PhoneBoy
--
The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone else, including the poster. |
|
kenn10
join:2003-09-10
Kennesaw, GA | reply to montee4
As a beta tester, I've tried every imaginable way to make it work behind a router and it won't. The DLINK is a little limited in what you can do. |
|
jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
| reply to jsbaker
I am going to call AT&T this morning to see what they have to say about this whole thing, I am not going to get my hopes up. Does anyone think my idea of getting another IP and not running everything through the TA will help any? I am going to try this when I get home today. |
|
craigg
join:2001-06-04
Princeville, HI
| reply to kenn10
It wouldn't work for me either behind the router. As for the bandwidth allocation, be thankful it is not as bad as it use to be. In the beginning of the beta test any time a call was live, the D-Link QOS would allocate all but 70K down and 35k up for the call. With all the other VOIP options available I can't understand why one would choose AT&T at the present time. |
|
jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
| reply to jsbaker
I myself chose AT&T because of the signup special and because it is only $19.99 for the first six months. I didn't want to cancel my POTS line right away until I knew wether or not the AT&T service was going to be ok. Since I already pay about $80 for POTS I did not want to shell out another 70 or 80 to signup for someone like Vonage plus pay the full monthly price. Yes I could have gone with one of Vonage's limited plans but there is still the signup fee. Some people don't like to pay sign up fees and others are not made out of money. If you still can't understand that then I am sorry, I asked for suggestions to my problems not criticism for who I chose. |
|
craigg
join:2001-06-04
Princeville, HI
1 edit | Wow! I am rarely one to criticize, but I did wonder why. Often times you get what you pay for and with AT&T you will be paying $40 monthly before you realize it. I understand not wanting to pay upfront fees. I would have suggested Voicepulse with you buying your adapter through Voxilla. If you didn't like the service you could eBay your adapter for close to what you paid for it, you would have received your first month free, and you could get unlimited usage for $25 monthly without the AT&T headaches.
Another consideration is that with many VOIP carriers, if you leave the service, you lose your number. Good luck in your decision.
said by jsbaker  :
I myself chose AT&T because of the signup special and because it is only $19.99 for the first six months. I didn't want to cancel my POTS line right away until I knew wether or not the AT&T service was going to be ok. Since I already pay about $80 for POTS I did not want to shell out another 70 or 80 to signup for someone like Vonage plus pay the full monthly price. Yes I could have gone with one of Vonage's limited plans but there is still the signup fee. Some people don't like to pay sign up fees and others are not made out of money. If you still can't understand that then I am sorry, I asked for suggestions to my problems not criticism for who I chose.
|
|
cahiatt
Premium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA
 ·BroadVoice
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southeast
·dock.net
| reply to jsbaker
[QUOTE= jsbaker When I am on the phone my speed tests drop from about 2900 to 200-300.
[/QUOTE]
ATT knows about this and I can't believe they released the product until it was fixed. As a beta tester I had the same issues. Tech support and other beta testers on the board have confirmed the same issue. When using the phone, it pretty much kills your upload and download bandwidth. Mine would drop from 1280/680 to almost 120/30. |
|
vonage
join:2003-11-29
Parlin, NJ
clubs:
| reply to jsbaker
I got the service on the 15th and connected it to the Cable modem and it did not work even after Activated that unit on there site. Once I called Technical SUpport I FOUND OUT IT WAS A FREAKIN JOKE! Some lady answered who was cutomer service All she knew was how to connect it...and I had to make it work myself by rebooting the box. I told them i wanted to speak to tier 2 and they told me They have to create a create ticket and tier 2 would call me back after 42 hours nobody called me back. I called to cancel @ 10 but they are not open on a FRI!....to cancel I called by on Monday and canceled. There support IS A JOKE! |
|
jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
| reply to jsbaker
Well just an update to let you know how the service is working. I call tech. Suppt. about the issue, and yes they did acknowledge that there was an issue with it slowing down the traffic. They never have given me a resolution to the problem, when they were supposed to call me back the same day - or so they claimed. I ended up getting an additional IP and running the box seperately so none of my traffic goes through it now. All in All I am so far satisfied with it. As Cahiatt said they now it is a problem and I too can't believe they released with out a fix for it. |
|
JK Texas
@rr.com
| Here is an email that I received from ATT tech support:
Another thing you may want to try is to use your router as a switch. If you have an uplink port plug the ta into that instead of the wan port, if no uplink port get a cross over cable and plug the ta with that wire into port 1 on your router and other pc's use ports 2-4. That will eliminate double nat.
Last part of your question about when, I believe this summer we may introduce the ability to put the ta behind a router.
I am going to try this a little later tonight and see if it works. |
|
Cyber2lz
join:2001-11-15
Odessa, FL
| reply to jsbaker
The TA is a router! The only thing that I've found that it cannot do is be an "inbound" connection point for a MS VPN.
The latest firmware that I have is 14i. My cable connection is 2500/768. While the rates drop when a call is in progress, the calls that I make/recieve are crystal clear. That is what QOS is all about! If you can't live with that, perhaps you'd be happier with another vendor!
We are a beta tester and have worked closely with Dlink and AT&T; and have the scars to prove it.
Since just after Xmas, we have not had to reboot the router/TA/NAT device. The service has been remarkably stable and calls sound like the other party is in the next room!!!
This service is "the best" and this comes from someone that is not exactly a "bell" fan !!!!
As always YMMV,
--
If you're not livin' on the edge, you're takin' up too much space ! |
|
jsbaker
join:2002-07-13
La Porte, TX
| reply to jsbaker
Well I got rid of my router this weekend, I had promised a friend she would have wireless with her Roadrunner in her new Apartment. Two wireless routers (well one Apple Airport and one Cheap ass AP duhh there is no DHCP in an AP why would it give the card an IP?) decided to die when I brought them from work so I gave her mine, but that's another story. Anyways this is how it is now hooked up- Cable modem (which died over the weekend, started resetting every few minutes and has now been replaced) 10 mbit 3com switch hooked to modem-smoothwall box hooked to 1 port and TA connected to another- all my internet traffic now runs through the smoothwall instead of the TA and then a Router. I kinda thought the double nat might be causing some problems. Everything is working remarkably well, I am very satisfied with the call quality, although since I am still testing the service for my use I am using a cordless phone which picks up a lot of background noise. Have not had any problems with calls not going or coming through. I plan on replacing the smoothwall with a router again sometime but for now the setup is working ok for me. I plan on having my POTS line shut off next week, My other half seems to be kinda vocal about the upfront issues with the service so I have to make sure it's going to be sufficient for us otherwise I may live to regret it or end up with a sky high cell phone bill. |
|
davelaw
join:2003-07-23
Guilford, CT
| reply to jsbaker
The reason the TA is in front of the router is to give priority to the VoIP traffic, which is highly time sensative. As previously stated this is how Quality of Service works albeit this is a crude form of QoS and isn't based on IP precedence bits.
If AT&T makes the TA work from behind a home router, you won't be happy with the call quality.
I'm gathering from this thread that the TA functions as a router, which answers the question I was looking for if an addition IP address was required from the ISP.
A further question I would have would be the default codec the TA is using G.711 or G.729. I'm gonna guess G.711 due to the complains about the level of the slowdown. G.729 would probably be a better choice assuming the TA can be configured to use a different codec. |
|
garys_2k
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Vonage
| quote:
If AT&T makes the TA work from behind a home router, you won't be happy with the call quality.
Not necessarily true. If you have enough up and down bandwidth you won't notice a thing sharing without the crude QOS, even while surfing or file sharing. |
|
pradin
join:2002-11-01
New York, NY
| Unfortunately that's totally incorrect. You could have unlimited band-with and a P2P program such as Bittorent will make continuously make new connections to increase your file transfer speed.
I myself have a 7.0 Mbps downstream / 768 Kbps upstream and with Bittorrent running it will immediately garble any Vonage conversation. |
|
