![]() | |
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Unified Communication Call Manager, Express, UC500 etc... |

![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) | ||||||||
| Junior Member ![]()
Rep Power: 0 ![]() | Hi, I would like to ask your opinion regarding the weird RTO's seen in our Core switch. We have a linux based Call Manager and UCCX directly connected. Ping scenarios 1.From CISCO coreswitch/switch to Call Manager, UCCX and IP Phone = with RTO 2.From CISCO coreswith/switch to PC or any Windows based server = NO RTO 3. LAN PC to Call Manager, UCCX, IP Phone = NO RTO Router>ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 10.52.191.95 ----------------------> to Call manager server Repeat count [5]: 100 Datagram size [100]: Timeout in seconds [2]: Extended commands [n]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.52.191.95, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!! !!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!! !.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!! Success rate is 84 percent (84/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms Router>ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 10.170.205.107-------------------------------> to IP Phone Repeat count [5]: 100 Datagram size [100]: Timeout in seconds [2]: Extended commands [n]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.170.205.107, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!! !!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!! !.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!!!.!!!! Success rate is 84 percent (84/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms Router>ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 10.136.88.50------------------------------> to PC Repeat count [5]: 100 Datagram size [100]: Timeout in seconds [2]: Extended commands [n]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.136.88.50, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms Router> I can't find any clues in CISCO Website. Appreciate your help in advance. thanks!! | ||||||||
| | |
| | #2 (permalink) | ||||||||
| Moderator ![]() sillejo has no status.
Location: Minneapolis Rep Power: 5 ![]() | I noticed all three devices are on distinct segments. There could be a million reasons but I would test inter and intra segment pinging to be sure you know where the problem exists. Ping from CUCM to another IPT server and to a phone. Then hard code two PCs onto the phone VLAN and see what happens. __________________ Deus ex machina | ||||||||
| | |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| H323 connection between Succession 5.0 and CUCM | Mithi19 | NORTEL | 0 | May 25th, 2009 04:35 AM |
| CUCM 6.0 analog phone ring amount | meangene21 | Unified Communication | 2 | November 18th, 2008 01:31 AM |
| News of the Weird...Add your own.. | rixride | Off Topic | 1 | February 24th, 2006 04:46 PM |
| now this is weird | Java_Bob | Off Topic | 4 | December 8th, 2005 09:52 AM |
| Now this is weird... | Off Topic | 10 | June 29th, 2005 02:23 PM | |