Register or Sign in
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- About TimHughSmith
TimHughSmith
Here to help
Member since Sep 13, 2017
09-13-2021
Community Record
18
Posts
4
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
09-09-2021
01:19 AM
Thanks Bruce. Yeah I think the problem I had in the past was that list of NBN compatible hardware. Telstra was supplying Netgear routers (with VDSL modem built in) with their own firmware - and you couldn't actually get in and convert it to bridge mode. This was a while back, but I remember opening the admin page for it, and the bridged option was there, and then it disappears.. so I guess the factory firmware supported it - and they had disabled it for some reason. With the VDSL device terminating the layer 3, we'd have to NAT everything through to the MX. I don't love the idea of this with VPN and just double NAT in general. I'd much rather the MX was terminating the layer 3 connection. Did you have a good supported device you were using in bridged mode?
... View more
09-08-2021
07:03 PM
Super old post, but looking at a few things here. I have my MX64 and everything connected to NBN Fixed Wireless via Aussie Broadband. Definitely as you've said it's more limitations of the Fixed Wireless likely to affect us. There is no business grade level of service available to upgrade to, all the same kind of SLA's etc. So LTE if available would be a good backup option. Our service can be a little patchy - I think it's just congestion mainly on the NBN Wireless side. Supposedly the ISP can check and tell you if your area is congested before you go ahead (but I didn't get much info back here) - we also didn't really have any alternative - except Sat (SkyMesh or maybe Elon's new one!) From what I've seen, the Fixed Wireless is still a lot better than SkyMesh. Sorry to hijack a little, but curious on your FTTN setup? Do you have a OneAccess NTD, then a supported NBN box, then your MX? Or do you have your MX hooked straight up to their NTD?
... View more
03-02-2021
03:43 PM
So change link type was actually on the ISP side. We have a National Broadband Network (NBN) here. It runs their own voice on it as well. I guess they only want to prioritise their own voice traffic. And instead of remarking other traffic down - they actually dropped it. So my comments weren't about your DSCP markings getting stripped It was more about how the ISP treats different DSCP markings. I'm not sure in the US whether any of the carriers do this. But just thought it was worth checking.
... View more
03-01-2021
04:22 PM
Not sure on your location. But a funny one that popped up here in Australia. ISP was actually dropping the RTP media packets that were marked up with DSCP EF on certain links. So we actually needed to change link type, or scrub the DSCP values.
... View more
03-01-2021
03:50 PM
Very cool @PhilipDAth We've done some of this with CSR1000V - and that's pretty much standardised approach on that platform now. Curious to see if you've been running your solution in production - and how you have found it? I feel like it's really not worth putting any production stuff into AWS unless it runs on two AZ's. And I don't want to have to press any buttons manually of course. Cheers, Tim.
... View more
07-19-2018
12:12 AM
Hi @GeorgeB - I hadn't seen the sensor crop feature. This looks good, I'll try it out! Is there any information on what that would translate to from a traditional CCTV identification requirement? i.e. identification possible from X to Y meters?
... View more
07-16-2018
06:20 PM
Hey guys, Looks like the MV21/71 mounts are not compatible with the MV12 And there is basically only a wall mount or ceiling mount plate included. I'd like to get some arms to get them off the walls a little bit in this deployment. I'm also curious about what this means for the MV21 It has a 5MP processor right, but only does 720p It was nice and flexible to have the 3-10 vari focal lens in there. The FOV is also pretty wide - even on the N. Looking at some traditional CCTV units that have an option to flip the 16:9 round, so you can shoot it down a corridor. This seems like a nice feature. But I digress. Mounting options anyone? 🙂 Cheers, Tim
... View more
06-14-2018
09:50 PM
That would be awesome.
... View more
04-04-2018
03:42 PM
2 Kudos
Motion detection working like a champ on our MV21! Still waiting to get my hands on an MV12 to play with analytics 🙂 Cheers, Tim
... View more
03-26-2018
12:49 AM
Ah yes, just tried - it won't let you forward that as 1:1. Cheers, Tim.
... View more
03-25-2018
09:59 PM
Hi Steven, I'm not sure I follow why it's different before and after. You have 1 x public IP from the ISP They hand off a link to you from their manage firewall (on private IP's) They are doing a 1:1 NAT from the public IP to the private IP of your ASA external interface You are doing a 1:1 NAT on the ASA from external to internal You seem to have a second IP in the mix on the proposed MX - like the ISP may be natting multiple public IP's to you perhaps? Is something changing on that front, or you want to just do like for like? Cheers, Tim
... View more
10-17-2017
05:10 PM
Hi David, It would definitely need to be a 1:1 bi-directional NAT, so CUBE uses same address outbound. I can put SIP profiles onto CUBE that swap the public and private addressing, but it's not a clean option. I have not had a chance to test yet. But I was wondering if we could create a DMZ with public IP's. I was going to see if I could configure a NAT rule that basically uses the same IP as outside and inside. I.e. Public ip 1.1.1.1 to Private ip 1.1.1.1 Then I was going to put that 1.1.1.1 in a DMZ. It looked like it let me configure it, but I'm not sure if it will actually work yet. Cheers, Tim.
... View more
10-12-2017
07:45 PM
Hi guys, I'm deploying a CUBE SBC hanging off our Meraki MX What I've found so far is that we can do a 1:1 NAT with the MX, but it has not ALG to handle swapping out the external/internal SIP messages. CUBE is a beast, and we can write SIP profiles to do this, but I don't really want to manually intervene like that. I'm thinking at the moment, I may just give the CUBE a public IP (same network as outside MX interface) on an outside interface, and then give it an inside interface back into the MX on a DMZ. That solution would work, but I would still rather have the CUBE behind the MX.I don't think I can route inbound traffic through the MX onto a DMZ without using NAT though? I don't think I can route inbound traffic through the MX onto a DMZ without using NAT though? (I would still want to limit traffic with firewall rules from internet to CUBE) This also just raises the question - can I have a DMZ running public IP's without NAT? Has anyone else tackled this? Am I missing anything? Cheers, Tim. * EDIT * Just checking to see if I can do a 1:1 NAT with the same Public and LAN IP - i.e. 1.1.1.1 to 1.1.1.1 to achieve the inbound routing?
... View more
09-14-2017
11:40 PM
Yep, some nice improvements there. Still Cisco cloud based currently. Cheers, Tim.
... View more
09-13-2017
07:49 PM
1 Kudo
Hi guys, Azure announced now too! https://meraki.cisco.com/products/appliances/vmx100 Would be nice to see it on VMWare next Cheers, Tim
... View more
09-13-2017
05:00 PM
1 Kudo
Hi guys, Cloud storage or local NAS would be great. I like the idea of not having a central box where all your footage can be stolen, but I also think we need an archive, export option. Cheers, Tim.
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 5939 | |
| 1 | 2885 | |
| 1 | 9819 |
