Stupid Question. Need an answer fast!

[Danny D]

I dont know BudMan and i cannot ask them because i have to wait on the phone all day. I just connected my laptop directly to the cisco thing and nothing. I was getting a 169.xx. ip.. which is useless... I do not have access to the cisco i dont even know how to access it. So i guess I will just switch my linksys router to something more powerful if i can find something simple... i dont know why my laptop doesnt work but when we connected the phone systems they worked fine..

[+BudMan MVC]

Well did they set a static IP on the phone system?? You don't know if you set a static on your linksys router internet port or its dhcp??? Look!!

[Danny D]

Well did they set a static IP on the phone system?? You don't know if you set a static on your linksys router internet port or its dhcp??? Look!!

O yeah totally forgot. I gave the linksys the static ip and when they set up the phones they gave them a static IP.

[+BudMan MVC]

Well then.. your cisco is not handing out anything - have to use one of your public statics -- so no you could not just plug in your switch unless your going give all your devices public static IPs.

Now what you could do is plug your phone system into the cisco using 1 of your public IPs.. Then just use your linksys router on one of the other ports on the cisco and give it your 2nd public IP.. This way your phones would not be going through your nat router, but all your PCs would be behind your linksys nat.

Now not sure on exactly how your phone system works? Your phones are all IP based on their own nat network?? Or do they just get wired to some central phone device that handles all the traffic over IP to the internet?? Only issue would have with this setup is if you wanted to run some kind of software on the PCs that interact directly with the phone system?? Since they would not be on the same network.

This might be an option for you to use your phones without issues without having to buy a new router, etc.

[Danny D]

Well then.. your cisco is not handing out anything - have to use one of your public statics -- so no you could not just plug in your switch unless your going give all your devices public static IPs.

Now what you could do is plug your phone system into the cisco using 1 of your public IPs.. Then just use your linksys router on one of the other ports on the cisco and give it your 2nd public IP.. This way your phones would not be going through your nat router, but all your PCs would be behind your linksys nat.

Now not sure on exactly how your phone system works? Your phones are all IP based on their own nat network?? Or do they just get wired to some central phone device that handles all the traffic over IP to the internet?? Only issue would have with this setup is if you wanted to run some kind of software on the PCs that interact directly with the phone system?? Since they would not be on the same network.

This might be an option for you to use your phones without issues without having to buy a new router, etc.

Umm this is the way i currently have it set up. The phone system is connected to the cisco not to the link sys router. The phone system has its own switch so we ran a cable from the phone switch to the cisco 851.

[Danny D]

Just to clear something up these phones are not VoIP phones, they are Digital. So they dont have ip's.

[+BudMan MVC]

Well then as long as your happy with your web performance using your linksys.. I don't see how it can be any where really even close to the 101MB your paying for?? But if your happy with it, and you don't have any need to access the phone systems device from your PCs which are behind a nat and might cause problems your good to go then.

Me personally I would not be happy with a service that is suppose to be 101MB and getting what?? 70's maybe behind the linksys? I would be really surprised if in the 80's from behind the linksys -- but if your happy with what your getting your good to go.

Now the one thing I could see you having a problem with - unless their some QoS setting on the cisco to place higher priority on the phone systems traffic?? Is when your users are pounding the web, say downloading or p2p?? Your phone quality might suffer?

If this ends up being the case - then your going to either need to make changes on the cisco to place phone traffic at higher priority, or put everything behind a different router where you can use QoS.

[+John Teacake MVC]

We made the assumptions (I think) that the phones had IP's but they dont. I'd say that the Device that manages the phones sits behind a NAT. So yeah . . . .

We made the assumptions (I think) that the phones had IP's but they dont. I'd say that the Device that manages the phones sits behind a NAT. So yeah . . . .

[sc302 Veteran]

why are danny topics so confusing....first he said he was going with ip phones, now they arent ip phones.....man these sure are fun deciphering what is actually going on.

[stereopixels]

We made the assumptions (I think) that the phones had IP's but they dont. I'd say that the Device that manages the phones sits behind a NAT. So yeah . . . .

You didn't assume anything. He definitely said he was getting voIP phones but has since changed his mind, which I guess wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't a key part to answering the damn question in the first place.

[Danny D]

Well then as long as your happy with your web performance using your linksys.. I don't see how it can be any where really even close to the 101MB your paying for?? But if your happy with it, and you don't have any need to access the phone systems device from your PCs which are behind a nat and might cause problems your good to go then.

Me personally I would not be happy with a service that is suppose to be 101MB and getting what?? 70's maybe behind the linksys? I would be really surprised if in the 80's from behind the linksys -- but if your happy with what your getting your good to go.

Now the one thing I could see you having a problem with - unless their some QoS setting on the cisco to place higher priority on the phone systems traffic?? Is when your users are pounding the web, say downloading or p2p?? Your phone quality might suffer?

If this ends up being the case - then your going to either need to make changes on the cisco to place phone traffic at higher priority, or put everything behind a different router where you can use QoS.

We don't download videos or anything in that nature. Its only small documents that are 100-500kb. So we do not use the internet heavily here. But would placing a router behind the phone system solve that problem?

You didn't assume anything. He definitely said he was getting voIP phones but has since changed his mind, which I guess wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't a key part to answering the damn question in the first place.

We were going to go with VoIP phones, but then changed our mind. The technology is VoIP, but the phones are not.

[+BudMan MVC]

"But would placing a router behind the phone system solve that problem?"

What?

Why would you think to putting the router behind the phone system?? Does the phone system allow you to connect PCs to it? Does it act like a router? If so why would you need another router?

If allows you to connect ethernet devices to it -- its what bridging the internet connection it has? Or does it NAT it -- do you think you would want to double nat? Does the phone system documentation say you can do something like this?? Have you read the phone system documentation? ;) Can this device act as your PCs gateway?

Im pretty sure no you would not want to put PC devices connected to another router behind the phone system device.. What you would want is a device that both your phones and PCs are connected to that would place a higher priority on the phone traffic vs pc web traffic. Could this device be your phone system device?? Maybe -- what is the make and model of this phone system?

Normally you would have access to that cisco and use its QoS to give higher priority to your phones traffic vs the pc clients. But since you do not -- then sure I guess its possible the phone systems device connected to the internet could be your router and allow for other devices to be connected to it other than phones. If it supports this then I would assume its doing nat - so then no you would not want to put another nat router behind it. If it does not allow you to connect other devices other than phones -- then how exactly would you connect your router behind it?

What is the make and model of this phone system - so we can lookup what your your working with.. But off the top no I would not suggest you place a router behind it, nor do I believe that would help in anyway shape or form priority of phone traffic over web traffic.

Stick with what you have until you understand what the phone system can do -- and or look for a router you can put between your phonesystem and PCs that supports QoS and can handle the bandwidth of your phones and clients... Or change your service so that you can get access to the 851 so you can use it as your gateway without the linksys for your pcs

[Danny D]

Earlier the cable guys were here, because they had to move the modem into another room, since i am re-wiring everything and now everything including the server is in ONE room. So i get my laptop to test out the speeds. So i connect the laptop to the Cisco 851. The cisco 851 does not give ip's out automatically so i had to give my laptop its own IP and configure the DNS etc so it can get on the internet. So i finally got on the net and try speedtest.net

Speedtest.net shows 95 mb/s download and 18 mb/s upload. I try pingest.net i get a grade of A+ with no packet loss.

Now i connect my laptop to my linksys router (also tried the switch same results) and i get about 30 mb/s download and 5 mb/s upload. I try pingtest.net grade is D and packet loss 22%.... So it seems that the router is killing me. Please recommend a few that i can look at and purchase. I need something simple nothing complex. I know you guys recommended a few somewhere, but there are so many pages. Something up to $300..

Thanks

[sc302 Veteran]

you are showing us how lazy you are. 8 pages isn't a lot of pages. keyword.....sonicwall

ctrl+f if you must. if it takes you longer than 10 min to find, I will find you and beat you.

[+BudMan MVC]

"Now i connect my laptop to my linksys router (also tried the switch same results) and i get about 30 mb/s download and 5 mb/s upload. "

Are you saying just using the switch and the cisco gave you the same 95Mbps results - or the same as with the linksys 30 mbps?

I don't see how switch would lower your speeds - so I am going to assume when you say same results with switch you mean 95mbps?

The slow speed makes sense - but 22% packet loss does not. But sure there are many better routers you can get.. But why not just use the 851?? Can't you just change your service to allow you access to the cisco device?

I would suggest you look at entry level business routers - be it cisco asa, sonicwall, etc.. But thought your budget was $500?

'I need SPEED! So can anyone recommend a good router up to $500? "

edit: 10 Minutes?? I think typo'd the 0 on the end of the 1 minute at most it should take ;)

[Danny D]

you are showing us how lazy you are. 8 pages isn't a lot of pages. keyword.....sonicwall

ctrl+f if you must. if it takes you longer than 10 min to find, I will find you and beat you.

I didnt know if it was in this thread or the other threads.

"Now i connect my laptop to my linksys router (also tried the switch same results) and i get about 30 mb/s download and 5 mb/s upload. "

Are you saying just using the switch and the cisco gave you the same 95Mbps results - or the same as with the linksys 30 mbps?

I don't see how switch would lower your speeds - so I am going to assume when you say same results with switch you mean 95mbps?

The slow speed makes sense - but 22% packet loss does not. But sure there are many better routers you can get.. But why not just use the 851?? Can't you just change your service to allow you access to the cisco device?

I would suggest you look at entry level business routers - be it cisco asa, sonicwall, etc.. But thought your budget was $500?

'I need SPEED! So can anyone recommend a good router up to $500? "

edit: 10 Minutes?? I think typo'd the 0 on the end of the 1 minute at most it should take ;)

Budman,

This is how my set up is now:

Modem > cisco 851 > link sys router > switch

When connecting my laptop to either the linksys or the switch i was getting the low speeds with packet loss. When i connect my laptop directly to the 851 i get the best speeds. I cannot use the cisco 851 because there is no way for me to get in there and configure it. I called like 50 times. They said that its locked out, thats how they are made so no one can get in it...

[+John Teacake MVC]

Again why do you need the Modem AND the Cisco 851. What is the Brand/Model of the Modem?

For other forum users I have advised to check the duplex settings on all the devices.

[Danny D]

The CISCO needs to be there to give out the IP's.. Here is the modem:

http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Cable+Broadband/SURFboard+Modems+and+Gateways/Motorola+SURFboard+SBV6220+DOCSIS+3-0+_US-EN

[+John Teacake MVC]

At the risk of over complicating things you only need one Public IP the rest would be NATed right? So you could just tell the company that and they might suggest getting rid of the Cisco 851. Modem looks good. Again they promised you a 101mb line. The interface only supports 100mb there . . . Just to be picky ;)

[+BudMan MVC]

linksys --> switch.

Ok -- what was the point of connecting it to the switch for a speed test then? If its slow connected to the linksys directly, well then yeah its going to be slow connected to some downstream switch connected to the linksys as well ;)

As to using the 851, I thought someone mentioned in the thread that access to it was only for customers of a specific service - why can you not switch to that service that gives you access to the cisco?

regardless -- just get yourself a better router then.. That wrt54g2 is a HOME router, it has no business in anything but the smallest of ma and pa shops.

[Danny D]

Hey BudMan,

I just contacted cablevision and asked them how come they do not give me access to the Cisco 851 and how come i cannot use it as a router. The person there said that you cannot use the cisco 851 as a router if you want the static IP's. Its either set up for static ip's or as a router. I need the static IP's. Also i found a few routers that might be good and I need your opinions:

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc=15&p=WRVS4400N&d=Linksys%20WRVS4400N%20Wireless%20Gigabit%20Router%20%28WRVS4400N%29&c=Wireless%20Routers&sku=WRVS4400N&utm_campaign=GAN&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=k232270

- Seems good, but i really don't need a wireless one since i already have one.

The sonicwall you guys recommended also seems good:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012LMR1Q/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=001GR1FRJX176WTXYVSR&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

This one seems good:

http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-FR114P-Firewall-Router-Server/dp/B00006B9HP/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270567951&sr=1-1

Another Good one:

http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-Ethernet-Security-Wireless-CISCO851W-G/dp/B000A4580I/ref=sr_1_275?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270568157&sr=1-275

This one is good and the price is good:

http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-851W-Integrated-Services-Router/dp/B000A7IDZM/ref=sr_1_286?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1270568157&sr=1-286

Thanks

[+BudMan MVC]

"Its either set up for static ip's or as a router. I need the static IP's."

That is utter gibberish.. The 851 is more than capable of doing 1to1 nat and 1toMany nat at the same time.. It can handle your 5 public IPs, while using 1to1 to your inside devices for say public ip1 and then sharing public ip2 with multiple devices using NAPT. And then doing whatever you want with the other public IPs

I am also curious why you think you need use of more than 1 static IP anyway?

As to the sonicwall 180 your looking at? You might want to take a look at the spec's of whatever router you get for throughput.. The 180 for example seems to drop into the dirt when doing Antivirus or IPS.. 10, 15mbps etc.. I would look into that before purchase if your wanting to use those features. Maybe a 210 would more what your after.. Also how many nodes (users behind it?)

edit: got to love the idea of putting a 851 behind a 851 ;) Why not just use the 1!!

[+John Teacake MVC]

"Its either set up for static ip's or as a router. I need the static IP's."

That is utter gibberish.. The 851 is more than capable of doing 1to1 nat and 1toMany nat at the same time.. It can handle your 5 public IPs, while using 1to1 to your inside devices for say public ip1 and then sharing public ip2 with multiple devices using NAPT. And then doing whatever you want with the other public IPs

I am also curious why you think you need use of more than 1 static IP anyway?

As to the sonicwall 180 your looking at? You might want to take a look at the spec's of whatever router you get for throughput.. The 180 for example seems to drop into the dirt when doing Antivirus or IPS.. 10, 15mbps etc.. I would look into that before purchase if your wanting to use those features. Maybe a 210 would more what your after.. Also how many nodes (users behind it?)

edit: got to love the idea of putting a 851 behind a 851 ;) Why not just use the 1!!

Exactly what I asked.

[Danny D]

I need one static IP for my pc's. One static IP for the phone system and one for my wireless cameras. We have around 15 users. Just called them again and they said the firmware is set up that way and it cannot be used for anything else. It's only there for the static IP's. Either way i need a router.

[+BudMan MVC]

Your reasoning for more than 1 IP does not make any sense -- you forward the port the camera users to the camera, same for phones -- I doubt its using every single port? SIP normally uses 5060 for signaling I think - and then some high numbered ports for the actual traffic... Again It quite possible to run these behind a nat.

So I don't see your need for multiple statics.

As to it not being able to be used for anything else -- that's just nonsense.. Its pointless to be using a 851 like that when the modem is quite capable of handing out the multiple IPs to your devices. Its handing them out to the 851 now!! So their logic is BS!!

So that modem your using the SBV6220 is a Voice Modem, ie it has 2 rj-11 ports on it, etc.. Are you using these for the phone service -- or does your phone system work over ethernet?

Either way -- since your just going to let them get away with their BS.. I would suggest you go with the sonicwall -- but if your wanting to make full use of your bandwdith, I would prob look towards the say the 210 vs the 180.. Your best best would be to call sonicwall and give them what your wanting to do, the bandwidth you have available, etc. and have them size out the correct model for your needs.