Dlink vp vs Sorenson vp

rockdrummer said:
I am not wrong but I am also not going to argue with you about this. I have been a network engineer for decades and mulitple VP's on your private network can be accomplished using NAT and there are a few other tricks you could use as well. Instead of insisting I am wrong, perhaps you should ask me how it's done. Then you may learn a few new tricks.
Click to expand...

me ask rockdrummer why dont you enlight DHB, Dennis and me with your trick bag how two vp on one router with one public ip?

me has two dlink vp, typical router and braodband conenction

typical router has many to one DMZ expensive router has one to one dmz
 
qwerty123 said:
me ask rockdrummer why dont you enlight DHB, Dennis and me with your trick bag how two vp on one router with one public ip?

me has two dlink vp, typical router and braodband conenction

typical router has many to one DMZ expensive router has one to one dmz
Click to expand...

Wow, you do not have sorenson vp?
 
qwerty123 said:
you need Network Basic 100 course
Click to expand...
Man there sure are a lot of self proclaimed network experts out here. I was to network basic 101 course almost 20 years ago.

if use NAT then you need to DMZ private IP usaully 125
Click to expand...
Not true. Natting and DMZ are mutually exclusive. But I am not going to insult you by saying you need a network 101 course. Your comment speaks for itself.
videophone use public ip so you can not simply plug two veidophone behind a router with single NAT.
Click to expand...
Uhm... yes you can. That is exactly why you would use NAT. Lesson; NAT is used to have multiple devices on a LAN appear as a single IP address to the WAN.
sorensnon use database server to tie vp number with public ip address together for incoming call therefore one public ip to one phone number
Click to expand...
That's right... all of your VP's would appear as a single public IP because of natting. It really depends on what your requirements and/or objectives are. Why would someone have multiple VP's? Is it so you don't have to run to a specific room to answer the VP or is it because you want to make concurrent calls on multiple VPs'. Here's the thing. Even with a telephone line, if someone is on a phone in the house, another person can't pick up another phone to make a call untill the first person is finsihed. We have multiple phones in our house for convienience. That's what I am thinking folks have multiple VP's in their house for as well. I am positive that multiple VP's would work and I am absolutly 100% without a doubt positive that multiple VP's can share the same public IP address as long as you are taking a single call at a time. Personally I would not use a DMZ for my VP. I would instead open the proper ports on the firewall to keep the VP protected. If using multiple VP's you need a firewall/router that supports NAT and you would have to configure NAT so that all of the VP's share the same PUBLIC IP address. Hell, now that I am thinking about this, you would not even need NAT. All you would have to do is configure all of your VP's to use the public IP address assigned to your CSU. (cable or DSL modem).

You would set up DHCP on the internal LAN to assign unique addresses to the VP's. In that configuration you could use the VP's as room to room intercoms and still be able to make outgoing and recieve incomming calls on any of the VPs. What you wouldn't be able to do is make concurrent calls on multiple VP's but as mentioned earlier, you cant do that on telephones either.
 
qwerty123 said:
me ask rockdrummer why dont you enlight DHB, Dennis and me with your trick bag how two vp on one router with one public ip?

me has two dlink vp, typical router and braodband conenction

typical router has many to one DMZ expensive router has one to one dmz
Click to expand...
See if my post above makes sense to you.. One thing that I can tell you is that I am more likely to help you if you don't start by insulting me and telling me I need a 101 course. My skin is pretty thick but I do take offense to insults on my inteligence.
 
rockdrummer said:
all of your VP's would appear as a single public IP because of natting. It really depends on what your requirements and/or objectives are. Why would someone have multiple VP's? Is it so you don't have to run to a specific room to answer the VP or is it because you want to make concurrent calls on multiple VPs'. Here's the thing. Even with a telephone line, if someone is on a phone in the house, another person can't pick up another phone to make a call untill the first person is finsihed. We have multiple phones in our house for convienience. That's what I am thinking folks have multiple VP's in their house for as well. I am positive that multiple VP's would work and I am absolutly 100% without a doubt positive that multiple VP's can share the same public IP address as long as you are taking a single call at a time. Personally I would not use a DMZ for my VP. I would instead open the proper ports on the firewall to keep the VP protected. If using multiple VP's you need a firewall/router that supports NAT and you would have to configure NAT so that all of the VP's share the same PUBLIC IP address. Hell, now that I am thinking about this, you would not even need NAT. All you would have to do is configure all of your VP's to use the public IP address assigned to your CSU. (cable or DSL modem).

You would set up DHCP on the internal LAN to assign unique addresses to the VP's. In that configuration you could use the VP's as room to room intercoms and still be able to make outgoing and recieve incomming calls on any of the VPs. What you wouldn't be able to do is make concurrent calls on multiple VP's but as mentioned earlier, you cant do that on telephones either.
Click to expand...

very good you passed Network Basic 100 pat yourself on back two or more vp can not be used at the same time for outgoing calls still one public IP many vp can be use for inhouse call

which port ya wanna open? how to differentiate vp for incoming call?

rockdrummer said:
open the proper ports on the firewall to keep the VP protected
Click to expand...
protect from what?
 
qwerty123 said:
very good you passed Network Basic 100 pat yourself on back two or more vp can not be used at the same time for outgoing calls still one public IP many vp can be use for inhouse call

which port ya wanna open? how to differentiate vp for incoming call?

protect from what?
Click to expand...
That's why I said in my earlier post that it depends on what your objectives are. If you want multiple people to make phone calls at the same time then you would need multiple phone lines... Right? Same applies to VP... but if your objective is convienience, then you could configure multiple VP's to have the same public IP but different private IP's, add the private IP's to your DMZ (if you use DMZ) and you would be able to place or recieve calls from any VP in your house.
 
qwerty123 said:
very good you passed Network Basic 100 pat yourself on back two or more vp can not be used at the same time for outgoing calls still one public IP many vp can be use for inhouse call

which port ya wanna open? how to differentiate vp for incoming call?

protect from what?
Click to expand...
Dude. First of all you should tone down your condesending attitude. It's not going to help you in life. Secondly do you even know what a DMZ is? If you did then you wouldn't have to ask the question. The answer to your question can be found here in my first post.
http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=31636
 
rockdrummer said:
That's why I said in my earlier post that it depends on what your objectives are. If you want multiple people to make phone calls at the same time then you would need multiple phone lines... Right? Same applies to VP... but if your objective is convienience, then you could configure multiple VP's to have the same public IP but different private IP's, add the private IP's to your DMZ (if you use DMZ) and you would be able to place or recieve calls from any VP in your house.
Click to expand...

alrwight so i set up 10 vp with different private ip set all of these ip in DMZ with ONE public IP then 10 vp will ring for incoming call?

no no no no not work!

you buy 10 dlink dvc1000 and let me know
 
qwerty123 said:
alrwight so i set up 10 vp with different private ip set all of these ip in DMZ with ONE public IP then 10 vp will ring for incoming call?

no no no no not work!

you buy 10 dlink dvc1000 and let me know
Click to expand...
If that doesn't work then perhaps Sorenson had the IP tied to the MAC. In that case you may be able to get around it using MAC cloning. qwerty124... please understand my comments are in theory and there are many ways you could possibly get around this. The problem I have is that I don't own multiple VP's. Why don't you send me a couple to test with and then I can tell you exactly what you need to do.
 
rockdrummer said:
If that doesn't work then perhaps Sorenson had the IP tied to the MAC. In that case you may be able to get around it using MAC cloning. qwerty124... please understand my comments are in theory and there are many ways you could possibly get around this. The problem I have is that I don't own multiple VP's. Why don't you send me a couple to test with and then I can tell you exactly what you need to do.
Click to expand...


check out this post
 
qwerty123 said:
check out this post
Click to expand...
I did.. check out my reply.. qwerty.. I am not here to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else. I am meerly offering my assistance and suggestions based on my knowledge and experience. I am in no way professing to be an expert in everything. Nobody is. I have been in this field long enough to know that trail and error are normal when troubleshooting or attempting something new. If Sorenson is like most providers, they provision their devices based on the MAC addresss. That said, there is a way you should be able to set up a seperate segment behind a MAC cloning device and place your VP's on that segment. You would clone the MAC address that was provisioned by the provider. In theory this should work but again, I don't have multiple VP's to test it out with. You wanna send me some? If you like I will email you a copy of the manual. Below is taken from the manual. As I mentioned in my other thread, the below settings are not necessary if you place your VP's in the DMZ.

Port forward the following ports to the Sorenson VP-100. The Sorenson VP-100 needs the following ports open to function properly.

Inbound Ports:
• Port 1720 (TCP & UDP)
• Ports 15328-15333 (TCP & UDP)
Outbound Ports:
• Ports 1024-65535 (TCP & UDP)
• Port 21 (FTP)
• Port 80 (HTTP)
• Port 389 (LDAP)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
qwerty123 said:
you a CSD fan? CSD did no research or development on vp ben soukup still mooch
Click to expand...
Are you sure that there is No Research & Development at CSD ?

Ben Soukup still mooch for what ?
 
Regular phone isn't problem when it comes to multiple handsets! You could have phone in every room and of course all of them would ring and you'd grab the nearest handset... With VP, it can't be done!

rockdrummer said:
That's why I said in my earlier post that it depends on what your objectives are. If you want multiple people to make phone calls at the same time then you would need multiple phone lines... Right? Same applies to VP... but if your objective is convienience, then you could configure multiple VP's to have the same public IP but different private IP's, add the private IP's to your DMZ (if you use DMZ) and you would be able to place or recieve calls from any VP in your house.
Click to expand...
 
qwerty123 said:
CSD not spent $10 million on r and dm aybe a few cents. Sorenson did.
Click to expand...

qwerty, your blind loyalty to Sorenson amazes me. You don't know any facts, you just make up quotes and throw them out as long as they show everyone else but Sorenson in a negative light.

Of course, CSD has done much R&D on VRS. They come up with many features that Sorenson turns around and copies, the same as when Sorenson copies HOVRS.

Who came up with VRSMail? Sprint and CSD.
Who was the first to set up incoming calling for VRS? Sprint and CSD.
Who came up with the bandwidth test on their homepage first? HOVRS.
Who came up with VRS through IM first? HOVRS.
Who came up with the .TV extension? Sprint and CSD.
Who came up with the 5 digit extension number for hearing people to call you? Sprint and CSD

I'm probably forgetting a lot more features that the VRS industry adopted because of these leaders, not because of Sorenson. All these features have been adopted or bastardized by Sorenson -- the .TV extension and IM address was never used by them because they simply took over the D-Link LDAP server and said, "Use the phone number" and left all other non-D-Link videophones in the cold.

Now, with this latest "My SprintVRS Line" craze, we may be beginning to see more cracks against Sorenson's so called, "we spent millions developing the VP, we deserve millions back from the FCC and no one else spent as much as we did" statements.
 
Dennis said:
qwerty, your blind loyalty to Sorenson amazes me. You don't know any facts, you just make up quotes and throw them out as long as they show everyone else but Sorenson in a negative light.

Of course, CSD has done much R&D on VRS. They come up with many features that Sorenson turns around and copies, the same as when Sorenson copies HOVRS.

Who came up with VRSMail? Sprint and CSD.
Who was the first to set up incoming calling for VRS? Sprint and CSD.
Who came up with the bandwidth test on their homepage first? HOVRS.
Who came up with VRS through IM first? HOVRS.
Who came up with the .TV extension? Sprint and CSD.
Who came up with the 5 digit extension number for hearing people to call you? Sprint and CSD

I'm probably forgetting a lot more features that the VRS industry adopted because of these leaders, not because of Sorenson. All these features have been adopted or bastardized by Sorenson -- the .TV extension and IM address was never used by them because they simply took over the D-Link LDAP server and said, "Use the phone number" and left all other non-D-Link videophones in the cold.

Now, with this latest "My SprintVRS Line" craze, we may be beginning to see more cracks against Sorenson's so called, "we spent millions developing the VP, we deserve millions back from the FCC and no one else spent as much as we did" statements.
Click to expand...

Sprint started its first VRS business, not CSDVRS. Sprint just hired CSD for the interpreter arrangements.

I understand that you are very much anti-sorenson person. No question !!!

That is alright, Dennis
 
IloveVP said:
Sprint started its first VRS business, not CSDVRS. Sprint just hired CSD for the interpreter arrangements.

I understand that you are very much anti-sorenson person. No question !!!

That is alright, Dennis
Click to expand...

I'm not anti-Sorenson. I'm anti-ignorance, which qwerty displays on a constant basis with regards to Sorenson. And yes, I know Sprint originally started VRS in Texas in conjunction with Relay Texas and Ed Bosson in 1996 and etc., etc., etc.

Hey, they say ignorance is bliss. I like making ignorant people smarter and UNHAPPY. :)
 
Back
Top