|
I do phones all day every day and like it. gently caress faxes though. And spark is easy to use and implement, haven't had to do much with Skype for business luckily.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
milk milk lemonade posted:It's not that they're not good. They're literally the worst. I work with people like that. They treat networking like plumbing - the signal from the PBX flows into the PoE switch and then it flows to the phones. VLAN tagging is voodoo, getting logs or packet captures is heresy. Every issue is solved by restarting things or shrugging. Or trying to sell a new system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Speaking of Polycom phones, has anybody had an issue to where phone to phone calls were clipping and dropping out? We don't have an on-premise server handling our phone traffic. It's all being routed out to the cloud, even for phone to phone communication. The strange thing is that calls to external lines are not affected by this issue. AT&T says it's a vendor issue, but the vendor is saying that it's an AT&T issue. We've got a 10 MBPS connection, which is admittedly slow, but I can't see how VOIP traffic can eat up all that bandwidth. Then again I'm just a glorified DBA so I'm not sure how all of this phone poo poo works, but we get a bunch of snarky e-mails from our engineering group about the phones on a weekly basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Are they using different codecs internally than when going via your cloud host for external calls? Mirror the port the phone is on and Wireshark it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Speaking of Polycom phones, has anybody had an issue to where phone to phone calls were clipping and dropping out? We don't have an on-premise server handling our phone traffic. It's all being routed out to the cloud, even for phone to phone communication. The strange thing is that calls to external lines are not affected by this issue. AT&T says it's a vendor issue, but the vendor is saying that it's an AT&T issue. Had a site with a two-node server cluster using multicast and switches that weren't set up for multicast. The raw PPS hitting each phone port as a result was overwhelming them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Are they using different codecs internally than when going via your cloud host for external calls? This seems to be an issue with the "cheaper" phone specifically. This doesn't occur on the higher end phones because I think that the codecs used are different. I'll run this by my networking admin and see if they've already tried it. Contingency posted:Had a site with a two-node server cluster using multicast and switches that weren't set up for multicast. The raw PPS hitting each phone port as a result was overwhelming them. Another good question I'll ask networking. I think the main issue is that the traffic isn't restricted to the LAN itself. The data actually goes out to the cloud and back in from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
How many users do you have that you guys went with a solution that doesn't do direct phone-to-phone with a 10Mbs connection?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:How many users do you have that you guys went with a solution that doesn't do direct phone-to-phone with a 10Mbs connection? Maybe 35-40? It was a situation where we had a 15 year old PBX system go out with a non recoverable fax server software running on SBS 2003. We keep pushing to upgrade our bandwidth but the C-Levels keep nixing it. Basically our solution is to just suffer until somebody breaks down and upgrades the connection or does an on-prem solution again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
It could be any number of things, but without more detail it's impossible to really say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Yeah I figured it wasn't going to be an easy solution. My involvement with it is second hand at best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:Why don't you just restrict who can send out to the address? This is the plan but I need to get it approved because 'what if it's an emergency and nobody is allowed to send an alert message!!!!!!!!!!!!!' Edit: actually my true plan is to get managers to tell everybody it's restricted so users are too afraid to use it, but then keep it wide open so I don't have to manage an access list. Judge Schnoopy fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:This is the plan but I need to get it approved because 'what if it's an emergency and nobody is allowed to send an alert message!!!!!!!!!!!!!' People will still reply all, the trick is to use delegation and get department managers only on the list and anyone else they want on it they can add. I actually have my everyone really trimmed. It's myself, CEO, CFO, Head of HR. Obviously that is the dream and not everyone can have it. It's one of the few things I have going well, and it mostly happened because we didn't have an Everyone until I made it because I was tired of adding everyone by hand and having a reply all after the first time I had to do it for a maintenance window. I then said I recommend only the following people have access to this list it was approved and people are happy with it. pixaal fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I've got a vendor whose software authenticates users against LDAP, but can only look at a single domain controller. There are separate Forests of users that will need to be authenticated. I'm looking into using OpenLDAP as a proxy for the two ADs, am I going down the right path here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Edit: actually my true plan is to get managers to tell everybody it's restricted so users are too afraid to use it, but then keep it wide open so I don't have to manage an access list. When we moved from in house exchange to Google I didn't bother locking down our everyone group because, eh, it's been locked down so long everyone knows it's locked down. I made it six months before some God damned moron mashed reply all, then the head of HR had a shitfit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
We spend the better part of a year eliminating Centurylink as a last mile provider on all of our circuits in favor of Level3, now Centurylink has bought Level3 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
IPAM recommendations? Or is one as good as the others? Just use the server role?
MC Fruit Stripe fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Excel Edit: Microsoft Access
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Speaking of Polycom phones, has anybody had an issue to where phone to phone calls were clipping and dropping out? We don't have an on-premise server handling our phone traffic. It's all being routed out to the cloud, even for phone to phone communication. The strange thing is that calls to external lines are not affected by this issue. AT&T says it's a vendor issue, but the vendor is saying that it's an AT&T issue. Basic sanity check here: when you say you have a 10 megabit connection, is that both directions or just the downstream? Because if your upstream's significantly slower, which it could be, the VOIP phones will really eat into that on top of any other traffic you have going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:IPAM recommendations? Or is one as good as the others? Just use the server role? I use Netdot for it. It's not perfect, but it's better than excel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Basic sanity check here: when you say you have a 10 megabit connection, is that both directions or just the downstream? Because if your upstream's significantly slower, which it could be, the VOIP phones will really eat into that on top of any other traffic you have going on. wat? VOIP traffic is minimal. Voice traffic is measured in kilobits, and not a whole lot of them. You just need to have QoS in place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
DigitalMocking posted:I use Netdot for it. It's not perfect, but it's better than excel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
CloFan posted:I've got a vendor whose software authenticates users against LDAP, but can only look at a single domain controller. There are separate Forests of users that will need to be authenticated. I'm looking into using OpenLDAP as a proxy for the two ADs, am I going down the right path here? Can you just feed it the DNS name of your domain, or does it have to have an IP address?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
DigitalMocking posted:I use Netdot for it. It's not perfect, but it's better than excel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:It's not very encouraging when there are bug reports from a week ago but the last release was two years ago. netdot appears to be the least-awful. Every open source tool seems to be in various states of abandonment and breakage. Not sure why a clear winner has never emerged, but it's a real sorry state of affairs. I'd love to be wrong if anyone knows of a modern, useful, not-complete-poo poo option!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Can you just feed it the DNS name of your domain, or does it have to have an IP address? Has to be an IP, but also the two DCs are entirely segmented-- different domains, networks, everything. E: Maybe I've figured it out using external trusts and domain local security groups. CloFan fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
DigitalMocking posted:wat? VOIP traffic is minimal. Voice traffic is measured in kilobits, and not a whole lot of them. If it's like a 10/1 DSL line or something, those "not a whole lot of kilobits" each add up quick on top of the normal upstream needed for all your other internet use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Basic sanity check here: when you say you have a 10 megabit connection, is that both directions or just the downstream? Because if your upstream's significantly slower, which it could be, the VOIP phones will really eat into that on top of any other traffic you have going on. It's 10/10 both ways. We need to implement QoS but getting this to work via AT&T is apparently difficult according to my networking guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:It's 10/10 both ways. We need to implement QoS but getting this to work via AT&T is apparently difficult according to my networking guy. Whaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:It's not very encouraging when there are bug reports from a week ago but the last release was two years ago. The netdot user group is very active with patches being applied and posted all the time, but there hasn't been an actual release from the school in forever. MC Fruit Stripe posted:I'm trying to use Microsoft's built in IPAM solution but it basically broken me as a man. This isn't even really an IPAM problem so much as Group Policy, but I've got the policies in place, even enforced at this point, on the OU, then I gpupdate /force on the target machine, gpresult /r, and it doesn't show the GPO as applied, so IPAM won't work. I've decided that I'll work on one of the 700 other things I need to do instead, and just shelf this one, because things that are annoying are things worth delegating. Don't do that. Therein lies madness. fishmech posted:If it's like a 10/1 DSL line or something, those "not a whole lot of kilobits" each add up quick on top of the normal upstream needed for all your other internet use. I thought it was a 10/10 line. 10/1 yeah, that's not something I'd ever want to run important VOIP over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:It's 10/10 both ways. We need to implement QoS but getting this to work via AT&T is apparently difficult according to my networking guy. Everything you've mentioned is wrong and bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Some county IT guy northeast of here is having a bad few days  http://www.ibj.com/articles/61153-madison-countys-computers-frozen-by-ransomware-attack quote:A so-called ransomware attack has left police, fire and other government staff in a central Indiana county locked out of their computers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
We do a lot of business with one of the government agencies down there. They're usually somewhat cranky even on a good day. I really, really, really hope I don't have to deal with them today. Of course, due to the Law of IT Bullshit, by merely thinking the above I'm almost guaranteed to have to deal with them today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
devmd01 posted:Some county IT guy northeast of here is having a bad few days This is likely due to the software, most of the emergency software packages require admin rights and full read write to the database server and running an EXE from there. We looked at a few packages that the state supported to migrate at one point but they all had this insane requirement. Oh and they assume a drive letter in the program you can't just point it to a share it will ask for the drive letter of the program and assume it's in X:\%programname%. We were hit by a cryptolocker a few months after that stuff started. I had warned about it being a possibility and locking this stuff down and verifying backups weekly. I hadn't touched backups since making them work about 6 months prior, and yup something had broken between. We had to roll back several weeks and the police and fire ended up entering all the old info by hand. It was a nice mess that of course because I touched it last was my fault even though there was about 5 months of working backups after I had touched it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
pixaal posted:This is likely due to the software, most of the emergency software packages require admin rights and full read write to the database server and running an EXE from there. We looked at a few packages that the state supported to migrate at one point but they all had this insane requirement. Oh and they assume a drive letter in the program you can't just point it to a share it will ask for the drive letter of the program and assume it's in X:\%programname%. We were hit by a cryptolocker a few months after that stuff started. I had warned about it being a possibility and locking this stuff down and verifying backups weekly. This does sound like your fault though? Why weren't you checking on backups? Why didn't you have a system in place that emailed you if a backup failed? This really looks like piss poor performance on your part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:This does sound like your fault though? Why weren't you checking on backups? Why didn't you have a system in place that emailed you if a backup failed? I wasn't actually the person in charge of backups. I helped actually fix the issue for the person who was who then ignored all the emails because it emailed only on successful backup. Also software claimed the backup was successful. I wanted to do weekly checks of the backups which was seen as a waste of time. If the light is green it's good! Don't waste time! e: Person I helped was above me in the hierarchy. What I learned was never touch something you aren't responsible for. pixaal fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
CloFan posted:I've got a vendor whose software authenticates users against LDAP, but can only look at a single domain controller. There are separate Forests of users that will need to be authenticated. I'm looking into using OpenLDAP as a proxy for the two ADs, am I going down the right path here? Can you just point it at domain.com and let dns do the rest? Edit; Nm someone else said this hours ago don't mind me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:This does sound like your fault though? Why weren't you checking on backups? Why didn't you have a system in place that emailed you if a backup failed? Based on a previous post, they moved him to a new position where backups were explicitly not his job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Everything you've mentioned is wrong and bad. That's what I'm gathering. Luckily I'm not on the networking side of things at work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:It's 10/10 both ways. We need to implement QoS but getting this to work via AT&T is apparently difficult according to my networking guy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
devmd01 posted:Some county IT guy northeast of here is having a bad few days Asking for the Nth time but what's the link to that goon-made Ransomware file auditing system for Windows servers? This is the poo poo of nightmares and it seems like every day I'm in my new position I'm asked to give up access to another system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:39
|
|