Upcoming Features/Enhancements

[VOIPoTim]

I'd feel more excited about new features if the feature I bought the service for (plain old telephone calls) worked better. Outbound calls have been fine. Inbound calls today have mostly failed -- the caller hears rings, and then silence.

It went away after we filed a ticket and the tech told us to power-cycle the adapter, but then it came back again.

I've not seen this failure before today.

I saw your ticket and replied to it with info just now. Since your calls connect, but the audio isn't getting through, that means the call connects but something is blocking the audio stream. Per the ticket, please setup port forwarding and no SPI firewall is blocking the connections.

That should resolve your issue.

As for why it would happen sometimes and not others...every call uses a random port between 35000 and 65000 so depending on the port used your router may let some through. That is pretty common especially with newer routers that want to "manage" all your traffic for you. In that case port forwarding almost always resolves it.

[sommerfeld]

I saw your ticket and replied to it with info just now. Since your calls connect, but the audio isn't getting through, that means the call connects but something is blocking the audio stream. Per the ticket, please setup port forwarding and no SPI firewall is blocking the connections.

That should resolve your issue.

I have comcast business internet service with multiple static addresses. the voipo adapter has one of the static addresses. the router's firewall is disabled for all static addresses. this has been working since I installed the service several months ago and just started failing yesterday.

the router configuration is already all the way open; there are no additional packet filtering or firewall settings to disable.

[VOIPoTim]

I have comcast business internet service with multiple static addresses. the voipo adapter has one of the static addresses. the router's firewall is disabled for all static addresses. this has been working since I installed the service several months ago and just started failing yesterday.

the router configuration is already all the way open; there are no additional packet filtering or firewall settings to disable.

Is it one of the SMC ones? If so, we've seen issues in the past with those where it was doing NAT behind the scenes and basically still proxying the traffic sent to the public IP. What model do you have

[sommerfeld]

Is it one of the SMC ones? If so, we've seen issues in the past with those where it was doing NAT behind the scenes and basically still proxying the traffic sent to the public IP. What model do you have

SMC model 8014, running firmware version 4.01.20-CCR

from a quick look at TCP traffic from another static ip I don't see sequence numbers or ip identifiers being rewritten -- it's not actually doing anything to the traffic it's allowing through.

followup: it appears that the "internet folk wisdom" on the smc 8014 is to check the "disable smart packet detection" box, which is unchecked by default. I have not been able to find a description of what this option actually does (there's a one-sentence description in a manual I found on dslreports), but there seems to be a unanimous belief that SMC's "smart packet detection" is a bad idea.

followup 2: this may have helped but the problem isn't completely gone -- had another silent call after disabling the feature.

[VOIPoTim]

SMC model 8014, running firmware version 4.01.20-CCR

from a quick look at TCP traffic from another static ip I don't see sequence numbers or ip identifiers being rewritten -- it's not actually doing anything to the traffic it's allowing through.

followup: it appears that the "internet folk wisdom" on the smc 8014 is to check the "disable smart packet detection" box, which is unchecked by default. I have not been able to find a description of what this option actually does (there's a one-sentence description in a manual I found on dslreports), but there seems to be a unanimous belief that SMC's "smart packet detection" is a bad idea.

That could very well be it then. I know it sounds crazy but almost all new routers still filter packets behind the scenes even in DMZ or with only public IPs.

[chpalmer]

Seems the soho industry is going towards the idea that end user needs a box to do it for them and away from true bridges. I looked for quite a while for a dsl modem for the office that didn't act as a router (was just a bridge).

Those "cable gateways" are such a pain...