I can't even
-
Tagging @CCWTech as we are discussing this. This sums up the VLAN for VoIP issues..
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Tagging @CCWTech as we are discussing this. This sums up the VLAN for VoIP issues..
I love it! I'm tempted to send this to him!! What an idiot.
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Tagging @CCWTech as we are discussing this. This sums up the VLAN for VoIP issues..
I love it! I'm tempted to send this to him!! What an idiot.
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
802.1Q does provide QoS. Yes, it prioritizes everything, but any network with VLANs configured properly will still see a benefit to the traffic within the prioritized VLAN.
Under normal circumstances, the amount of non RTP traffic in the VLAN is negligible and honestly not relevant to any discussion outside of theoretical mental exercises on 100% best possible prioritizaiton discussions.
Now that said, I never recommend using a VLAN for voice in the first place, because that is not the purpose of a VLAN. I always recommend setting up proper DSP tag based QoS as a primary resolution.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
But the meme was in response to someone who literally said he prioritized all protocols. It was about all, not about VLANs. He ALSO was using VLANs, but the meme was in response to the other part.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
But the meme was in response to someone who literally said he prioritized all protocols. It was about all, not about VLANs. He ALSO was using VLANs, but the meme was in response to the other part.
Ok, that is totally just, "I can't even".....
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
But the meme was in response to someone who literally said he prioritized all protocols. It was about all, not about VLANs. He ALSO was using VLANs, but the meme was in response to the other part.
Ok, that is totally just, "I can't even".....
Yeah. He probably isn't really doing that, but in his excitement to try to justify the VLANs, I'm guessing he was trying to bluster.
-
Definitely "good" VLANing and QoS is better than nothing, just not as good as better, simpler approaches.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Tagging @CCWTech as we are discussing this. This sums up the VLAN for VoIP issues..
I love it! I'm tempted to send this to him!! What an idiot.
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
802.1Q does provide QoS. Yes, it prioritizes everything, but any network with VLANs configured properly will still see a benefit to the traffic within the prioritized VLAN.
Under normal circumstances, the amount of non RTP traffic in the VLAN is negligible and honestly not relevant to any discussion outside of theoretical mental exercises on 100% best possible prioritizaiton discussions.
Now that said, I never recommend using a VLAN for voice in the first place, because that is not the purpose of a VLAN. I always recommend setting up proper DSP tag based QoS as a primary resolution.
I was arguing with another tech... He made the statement that he sets up VLANs for all VOIP clients for better performance.
Even before seeing Scott's video on the subject. I told the tech he was up in the night and that setting up a VLAN isn't done for performance... I was called 'unprofessional' and a 'goof' for not doing VLANs for all my clients VOIP systems... After seeing Scott's video, I could see that everything I was saying to the guy was true. The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly large enterprise network.
He's adding equipment and services at a premium price. Ripping off his clients. Very unethical.
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Tagging @CCWTech as we are discussing this. This sums up the VLAN for VoIP issues..
I love it! I'm tempted to send this to him!! What an idiot.
While this is totally true from the protocol point of view, the entire VLAN getting priority over all other traffic not in the VLAN is better than no QoS at all.
@scottalanmiller likes to neglect to mention this in his zeal.
802.1Q does provide QoS. Yes, it prioritizes everything, but any network with VLANs configured properly will still see a benefit to the traffic within the prioritized VLAN.
Under normal circumstances, the amount of non RTP traffic in the VLAN is negligible and honestly not relevant to any discussion outside of theoretical mental exercises on 100% best possible prioritizaiton discussions.
Now that said, I never recommend using a VLAN for voice in the first place, because that is not the purpose of a VLAN. I always recommend setting up proper DSP tag based QoS as a primary resolution.
I was arguing with another tech... He made the statement that he sets up VLANs for all VOIP clients for better performance.
Even before seeing Scott's video on the subject. I told the tech he was up in the night and that setting up a VLAN isn't done for performance... I was called 'unprofessional' and a 'goof' for not doing VLANs for all my clients VOIP systems... After seeing Scott's video, I could see that everything I was saying to the guy was true. The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Oh yeah, he is totally wrong and simply has no idea how the technology he is using even works.
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
100% agree.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
Right. We have many but it's for management and security.
-
@stacksofplates said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
Right. We have many but it's for management and security.
Exactly. They certainly have their place. Generally for management, sometimes for security, but that's about it. This weird obsession with VLANs on tiny networks for "performance" is just bizarre.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@stacksofplates said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
Right. We have many but it's for management and security.
Exactly. They certainly have their place. Generally for management, sometimes for security, but that's about it. This weird obsession with VLANs on tiny networks for "performance" is just bizarre.
Some is also management and security together if that makes sense. Like someone accidentally brings up a "rogue" DHCP server, it will only affect that specific VLAN. It could be malicious but a lot of times it's security for yourself in case of an accident.
-
@stacksofplates said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@stacksofplates said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
The tech responded by posting a link to a CISCO article covering very large enterprise environments. He's dealing with offices of 20 computers or less and can't understand why SMB would be any different than a significantly big enterprise network.
Even there, it's not for performance. You can have a million phone users and VLAN isn't for performance. You want VLANs, but for management purposes. It would be a nightmare to manage otherwise. But that's very different from performance.
Right. We have many but it's for management and security.
Exactly. They certainly have their place. Generally for management, sometimes for security, but that's about it. This weird obsession with VLANs on tiny networks for "performance" is just bizarre.
Some is also management and security together if that makes sense. Like someone accidentally brings up a "rogue" DHCP server, it will only affect that specific VLAN. It could be malicious but a lot of times it's security for yourself in case of an accident.
Sure. And sometimes people just want "ease of management" for some aspect of VoIP. Which isn't needed, but might "make sense" in their scenario. It can happen. But once they claim performance..... that's where we know they've lost it.
Same logic is why we don't use VLANs with SANs. We use dedicated hardware when doing that.
-
This was posted on a data recovery group I am a member of. (this didn't happen to me, but it's worth a share)
*I just had a client bring in a Surface Pro for data recovery. She said she had just come from the Microsoft store where she took it because it was no longer powering on. The tech at the Microsoft store took the Surface, smacked it really hard on the back 15 times right in front of the client, and then tried to power it on. When it did not power on he handed it back to the client and told them 'looks like you are going to need data recovery'.
It's nice to know that Microsoft is using such high tech troubleshooting techniques.
Hopefully it made you laugh as much as it did me.*
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
This was posted on a data recovery group I am a member of. (this didn't happen to me, but it's worth a share)
*I just had a client bring in a Surface Pro for data recovery. She said she had just come from the Microsoft store where she took it because it was no longer powering on. The tech at the Microsoft store took the Surface, smacked it really hard on the back 15 times right in front of the client, and then tried to power it on. When it did not power on he handed it back to the client and told them 'looks like you are going to need data recovery'.
It's nice to know that Microsoft is using such high tech troubleshooting techniques.
Hopefully it made you laugh as much as it did me.*
Are you sure she didn't take it to Best Buy?! wtf . . .
-
@dustinb3403 I know right!? @tech1 says she would have hit him 15 times and then said, 'looks like you're going to need a hospital'.
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 I know right!? @tech1 says she would have hit him 15 times and then said, 'looks like you're going to need a hospital'.
haha... right. Let me just hit you repeatedly and tell you to go find some support. . .
-
@ccwtech said in I can't even:
This was posted on a data recovery group I am a member of. (this didn't happen to me, but it's worth a share)
*I just had a client bring in a Surface Pro for data recovery. She said she had just come from the Microsoft store where she took it because it was no longer powering on. The tech at the Microsoft store took the Surface, smacked it really hard on the back 15 times right in front of the client, and then tried to power it on. When it did not power on he handed it back to the client and told them 'looks like you are going to need data recovery'.
It's nice to know that Microsoft is using such high tech troubleshooting techniques.
Hopefully it made you laugh as much as it did me.*
I've been to an MS store before. The "I can't even" should be that she set foot in the place.
