Messages

16

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 21, 2014, 02:27:46 PM »

Heritage02Rider,

That will teach me to try and explain from memory, especially since I am not getting any younger, and you are correct it is Operations not Tools to get to the error logs; at least you found them and that is what matters.

Now, I don't know what kind of pipe you have at both ends between the US and Mexico, but let's just try a little experiment with your codecs before you start changing a lot of stuff around.

According to your Network Diagnostics File you are running G.711 for your remote phones so let's knock that down to G.729 and see if the frequency at which this happens either lessens or goes away all together; I will bet on it being reduced with some instances still occuring.

Go to System > IP-Related Information > IP Connections > Remote {or whatever your Mexico Phones are using}

Now, that I look at your Diagnostics again it looks as though you may have you Mexico Phones as local phones since it is showing 2 audio frames per packet. Hmm, you may just want to change your Mexico Phones over to the Remote IP Configuration or at least seperate them from the Local ones so you can change the Codec without affecting all the local phones as well. If you need help with this let me know and I can walk you through it.

Thanks,

TE

I did have them set as local.

I have moved them to the Remote and G.729.

I will monitor and get right back. I literally got a insufficient from the remote phone a moment before I changed the setting. So I will probably know today.

17

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 20, 2014, 09:48:53 AM »

Thanks for the information and all your help. I am much smarter now.

However either my system is different or I am an idiot. Not find the "Tools>Error Logs", I did find the "Operations>Error Information...". So I was only able to get the Exxxxxxx.ndl via a Freeze. The regular logs, of which I downloaded all of them, did not have this file. Ran into a few things I never saw before, but successfully recovered. (Once frozen I was unable to unfreeze until I figured out how to turn off Automatic Diagnostics Delivery - good thing this was before the NCAA tourney!)

So it appears the log file is cutoff. I starts mid-stream in a message and only goes back a couple days. (13K) But there was good information there. I believe the "qos trust" has solved the local issue. That was my main focus. My phones that are remote (i.e. Mexico) are still getting the Insufficient Bandwidth. I am now focusing on my VPN to do qos, however I am smart enough to be dangerous with Cisco. I may utilize my SmartNet for this one. That's why I pay for it after-all.

The message below was before my change to the switches:
Insufficient Bandwidth: 03-18-2014 at 09:10 AM
   IP Station Extension: '2191' at IP Address 192.168.200.22 on Board 7
   VoIP Configuration Information:
      N/A
   IP Audio Quality Snapshot Values:
      Reporting ICP IP address: 192.168.200.201
      Reporting IP Address: 192.168.200.22
      Reporting Signalling Port: 6921
      Reporting Voice Port: 50030
      Far End IP Address: 192.168.200.203
      Far End IP Port: 6728
      RX Codex: 1
      Delay: 0
      Jitter Instant: 0
      Jitter Average: 0
      Jitter Buffer Overflow: 0
      Jitter Buffer Underflow: 0
      Jitter Buffer Average Depth: 20
      Jitter Buffer Max Depth: 20
      Snapshot Packets Lost: 0
      Packet Loss Max Burst: 0
      Packets Out of Order: 0
   IP Audio Quality History:
      Packets Lost: 11
      Packets Received Total: 177739
      Jitter Buffer Histogram:
        10-19ms:   0
        20-39ms:   0
        40-59ms:   0
        60-99ms:   0
        100-200ms: 0
        200+ms:    0
      Packet Loss Histogram: consecutive packets
        1:    11
        2:    0
        3-5:  0
        6-10: 0
        10+:  0
   Audio Samplings:
   Rec:    Time   Jitter   Pck Lst   Pck Rx   InTime%
   1   5   0   0   250   100
   2   5   0   0   250   100
   3   5   5   0   250   100
   4   5   5   0   250   100
   5   5   0   0   250   100
   6   5   0   0   250   100
   7   5   5   0   250   100
   8   5   5   0   250   100
   9   5   5   0   250   100
   10   5   5   0   250   100
   11   5   5   0   250   100
   12   5   0   0   250   100

As for my remote phones, this is all they print out:

Insufficient Bandwidth: 03-19-2014 at 04:44 PM
   IP Station Extension: '2196' at IP Address 10.52.66.45 on Board 7
   VoIP Configuration Information (Audio Session 10):
      VoIP DSP Number: 10
      Audio Frames Per Packet: 2
      In-Time Frame Percentage Threshold: 60%
      In-Time Frame Timeout: 5 secs
      Audio TX IP Address/Port: 10.52.66.45:50160
      Speech Vocoder Type: G711 Mu-Law
      Speech RTP Payload: G711 MU-Law
      Other Device System Echo Canceller Profile: No Echo
      Echo Suppression: FALSE
      Echo Saturation: TRUE
      Echo Suppression Sensitivity Level: 0
      Conn Dir: Two-Way; Call Session: 2196 (GW) 2619

18

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 19, 2014, 02:22:44 PM »

Follow-up - I did a WireShark and got the following:

Src (phone) = 192.168.200.x
Dst (5000) = 192.168.200.x
Differentiated Services Field: 0xb8 (DSCP 0x2e: Expedited Forwarding; ...)

Src (5000)
Dst (phone)
Differentiated Services Field: 0x00 (DSCP 0x00: Expedited Forwarding; ...)

Appears the phones are using qos and the switch is not.

modified...
Src (5000-PEC)
Dst (phone)
Differentiated Services Field: 0xb8 (DSCP 0x2e: Expedited Forwarding; ...)

Apparently the PEC card is doing qos since the UDP packets emanate from there.

19

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 19, 2014, 01:42:18 PM »

TE - Thanks. That is very detailed.

I did not have the Insufficient Bandwidth Alarm enabled, so I never saw the message on my phone. Also, I assume this prevents the log from show it as well. I have now enabled this feature.

As for the DSCP, I am not a qos expert, so let me ask a question here.

My settings for Type of Service are set as you have indicated: 184/184.

You mentioned that 'if you are giving the phone and controller DSCP values'; I guess I assumed that having these set along with the standard MITEL DHCP option 125 with dscp=46v46s26 has set the DSCP accordingly and the phones are tagging 46. Is there anyway to prove that the packets are tagged? Will Wireshark show this?

Basically, how do I know if I am tagging properly.

-Karl

20

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 19, 2014, 08:58:00 AM »

I'd check switch logs for Tx/Rx errors. Try moving cable to new switch port. Also make sure QoS is enabled and prioritized for voice. Most of the time I see insufficient bandwidth alarms on non-VLANed networks and most of the time it's negligible. If you're actually having service impacting issues as a result, I'd take a look at your network infrastructure as a whole. Check for patterns on time of day, people effected, etc.

Last night I checked and you may be correct. The engineer who setup my switch stack may not have enabled the qos properly. I noticed that all my ports were untrusted. So I set the "qos trust dscp" on each port requiring a phone and will see how this affects the users having the issue. Obviously I will have to wait a few days to see if it comes back. Will write back when I have more information.

21

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 19, 2014, 08:55:07 AM »

Insufficient Bandwidth is a system alarm, you will get that on phones with the Administrator flag, it doesn't display on the phones causing the issue you would have to check the system logs to see which ones are the cause. If it is one phone, it could be a bad patch cable or something connected to the PC port of the phone as well.

If you are not having any call issues and cannot find a cause, another solution is to go into the system flags and turn off the Insufficient Bandwidth alarm... sometimes this can be a false condition.

I have to correct you on this one. The phone that is having the issue at the time IS the phone indicating the message. The phone screen displays INSUFF BANDWIDTH (sp may not be exact) and the user gets a busy signal and the third party gets silence. After a moment or three, the phone returns to normal and the phone call continues.

I have checked the logs on the 5000 and cannot find any reference to this happening. Perhaps I have not checked in the correct places, but I did check the seemingly obvious places. Also, there is no alarms being registered on the 5000.

The issue is at the phone.

22

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Insufficient bandwidth at the phone - not server

« on: March 18, 2014, 11:02:42 AM »

We are a fairly new MITEL 5000 shop. We have about 50 users with about the same number of IP phones (5360's) phones with 1 GbE switches in them. Our network is running 1 GbE over HP ProCurve A5120's. We are converged, but the phones are on a separate VLAN from the data traffic. On a few phones, mostly the same ones, we are randomly getting a message on the phone itself (not on the 5000) indicating INSUFF BANDWITH and the phone gets a busy signal. After a few moments the call returns.

I have replaced the patch wires at both ends with no noticeable change. The issue cannot be recreated at will. We tried hammering the network connection at the same time we are on a call and the call is perfect. Not even a flutter.

Aside from replacing the wire from the server room to the end user, is there anything else I can/should be looking at? Could replacing the phones be worth a shot? If so, will MITEL actually replace them if I no longer get the issue? How would I prove it and is there a log somewhere of this actually occurring.

Any ideas are welcome.

23

MiVoice Office 250/Mitel 5000 / Re: SIP and the 5000

« on: March 05, 2014, 12:39:47 PM »

I just turned up my new SIP trunk with Windstream (f. Paetec) with Enterprise trunking enabled. Enterprise trunking is a must if you plan on doing call forwarding/find-me-follow-me. So far only one minor issue and it appears to be MITEL related. The call quality has not diminished and we are using a converged network both internally and externally. Windstream is sending SIP and data over an Ethernet connection and an Adtran router is separating the SIP traffic and data traffic at my end. The SIP goes directly to my 5000 and the data to my external router/firewall. The SIP is actually coming in as an MPLS network.

The SIP turn-up went smooth and was functional in a few minutes. The porting of number from one carrier to another (as in my case) was a bit of a hassle, but the Windstream tech was excellent and resolved some of our issues in a short period of time. Total migration from T1 to SIP from turn-up to port was about 1 1/2 hours, not including the installation and other nonsense not involved with the carrier change.

24

Mitel Software Applications / Re: VMware reservations for HA

« on: February 14, 2014, 08:08:19 AM »

Thanks for the reply. Very much appreciated.

I assumed that the reservations are there for a reason. I know you have no idea how taxed my servers are. My main concern was a large reservation creates a larger slot size and therefore reduces the number of available guests I can actually turn on. So my three servers, capable of many more guests, are reduced to a maximum of 24 powered on guests. For me, I am willing to run the risk of removing the reservations for now and see how it goes. My servers CPU's are barely flexing at about 10% utilization and my ram is less than 50% consumed. I am not using Teleworker and am not sure what interface the MAS has in regular calling with my 5000 and IP desk phones. I will run the risk now and hopefully avoid spending thousands for a new server(s) and upgrade licensing just to add a new guest or three.

In an effort to fully understand the risks vs benefits, I will follow up on this in a few weeks and let the forum know if I have realized any impact on the MAS or any other side affects.

25

Mitel Software Applications / VMware reservations for HA

« on: February 13, 2014, 11:17:04 AM »

I have a small VMware cluster and have recently added the Mitel Applications Suite from a ova provided by my phone supplier. The reservations on this guest are set pretty high. CPU=2000 MHz Memory=4048 MB. I checked my HA advanced runtime infos and had 36 slots with 23 in use and 1 available. No other servers have reservations set. I have three formidable servers with plenty of RAM and CPU. So I removed the reservations for the MAS to see what the effect would be. Result is 870 slots, 23 in use and 557 available. Much nicer!

My question is this; do I really need to reserve this large amount of CPU and memory for MAS and are there any serious consequences?

If I am in a HA situation, this wold insinuate a problem that requires attention, so I do not feel that any possibility of reduced performance would be a big issue. I also only have about 60 users on the MAS which barely utilize the interactivity of the software.