Need extra help installing your Ooma Hub or Telo system? Let us know.
#78807 by vicw
Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:53 am
I just installed my new Telo yesterday, between my Arris Cable Modem and Linksys E3000 router. All is well with the phone functionality, but my router can no longer see or report the correct external IP address to manage DYNDNS IP address updates, so now I can't externally get access to my 4 surveillance cameras and 2 Synology systems via the named addresses.

I've already been using port forwarding within the router for each of the device ports, and that has been working up until now. I added port forwarding in the Telo for each of the device port addresses, directing the ports to the assigned Linksys router IP address, but nothing connects. As a workaround, I tried direct IP address for each of the devices, rather than the DNS names, but even that won't work.

My Telo is on Rev 43368, not the most current level, but the Release info on the newer version doesn't show anything listed that looks like it could resolve the issue. I couldn't find any discussions in the forum that talk about this as a problem, so I'm hoping I'm just missing some key setting that the Telo needs to port forward properly. I really don't want to have to put the Telo behind the router if I can avoid it.

Everything did work properly with the Telo behind the router, at least on a short test, but I want to give the Telo max priority on voice quality, to keep wifey happy. She was happy with the TWC setup, whereas I want to save the $30 a month with Ooma. She definitely will let me have what for if voice quality degrades.
#78816 by vicw
Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:44 am
lbmofo wrote:FYI user in similar situation: viewtopic.php?t=10420

Thanks for that lbmofo.

I didn't find much in the thread that I hadn't already tried, but the forced IP setting in the .pdf file that limits the start and end address was an interesting way to control the assigned address to the router. In actuality, it had assigned .55 during every cold boot so far, but it probably makes sense to restrict it this way.

I had tried the DMZ address setting previously, with no improvement, but I went back and reset the Ooma literally to everything that was suggested on the Advanced section, as well as the Built-in Modem port MAC selection, then cold booted everything, with no change in performance. I then added back in my Port Forwarding settings, and rebooted again, but still no change.

I'm pretty much out of things to try. I hate to do it, but I may have to put it behind the router, and see if we can get consistently respectable voice quality. I have the QOS optimized in the router to accommodate it, but I have a lot on my system, and I'm not optimistic at this point that we can, especially based on some of the comments in that thread. If it can't perform, I'll be forced to return it, I guess. It was interesting that there was no conclusion or response to the final entry in the thread. I guess it either worked, or the customer just gave up trying.

As an aside, I strongly disagree with one of the comments in that thread regarding router management of DynDNS "Your router does not implement the DynDNS protocol properly (I've yet to find one that does)." I've been using that functionality for about two years, first with a Belkin router, and now with my Linksys E3000, and they have performed it flawlessly, and almost instantly in each case. I say that not to be argumentative, but to add my two cents of actual experience with using it. I wish the Ooma had the DynDNS function built into it, since it has direct visibility to the external IP address when it is at the head of the line.
#78820 by murphy
Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:59 am
Router implementations of DynDNS work fine if the router is behind the modem.
When you put Ooma in the middle they fail.

The DynDNS specification says that the router should send a query to a special DynDNS server to ask what the public IP address is. I have yet to find a router that does this. Instead they take the IP address assigned to their WAN port and register that with your DynDNS account.

With Ooma between your modem and router wait long enough for an update to DynDNS to occur and then log into your DynDNS account and see what IP address your router reported. It is extremely likely it will be the private address the router got from the Ooma DHCP server.

The only way around this is to run the client software that DynDNS supplies to do the updates instead of using the router function.
#78821 by vicw
Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:16 am
I'm sure your are right about that, under the special circumstance of having the router one step away from the external IP address. My good experience so far was with the normal router to modem connection scenario, so I never encountered that deficiency that your detailed. I had taken your earlier comment to be a general dismissal of the router DynDNS function, but thanks for putting it in context.

Having to keep a PC powered on 24/7 is not too practical for me, although it just occurred to me that my Synology units possibly could do that job for me. I'll check that out. It's kind of a moot point for me anyway, since I can't even get external connections to my devices at all, even using the External IP addresses for them.

I just put the Telo back behind the router, which I was not happy to do, and everything is running again, although I'm apprehensive about voice quality. I'll keep hoping that someone has actually had success with the configuration, including external access to devices, and that they might share.

Update: Synology does provide DDNS support. I'll try it out, but of course I mainly need to get the big problem fixed.
#78822 by tomcat
Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:32 am
vicw wrote:I just put the Telo back behind the router, which I was not happy to do, and everything is running again, although I'm apprehensive about voice quality. I'll keep hoping that someone has actually had success with the configuration, including external access to devices, and that they might share.

Many users, including myself, use the telo behind the router without any issues at all. Unless you have unusually high internet usage with the rest of your network I think you'll find your telo will work well. :)
#78832 by thunderbird
Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:50 pm
I have my Ooma Telo connected behind my router also. I like this method because if the Ooma device fails, and is placed before the router, my whole LAN could go down. But if my Ooma device fails and is placed behind the router, my LAN continues to function, with only the failed Ooma device to correct.
#78847 by vicw
Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:37 pm
Thanks Tomcat and Thunderbird. I agree, it is more convenient to have it behind the router. Key to me is whether or not we will encounter garbled voice intermittently in that setup.

I expect that my main vulnerability to poor voice quality will be the constricted upload speed I have available. I'm already paying TWC a $10 premium to have download speed of 10mpbs and upload speed raised from 384 kbps to 512kbps, for what TWC likes to call "TURBO MODE". Makes me wretch that they can say that with a straight face, but it is what it is, and it's all I can get for now in our area. They control that upload speed very tightly. I will have to police my nightly cloud incremental backups to late in the evening when my wife is not likely to be on the phone. I've already experienced what it did to my Verizon femtocell when I made a couple of calls on my cell while in that mode. My outbound voice was completely unintelligible according to the poor souls on the phone with me. Once I paused the upload, everything was fine.

I'm going to go back and see how the Synology manages DynDNS with the Telo up front. The Linksys E3000 incorrectly reported the IP address it was assigned from the Telo when installed ahead of the router, rather than the true network address. Of course even if that works properly, I still have the inability to access via DNS or with the actual IP addresses, so I won't be able to leave it that way, but I would like to check it out, while the condition is fresh in my mind.

Here's
#78849 by tomcat
Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:17 pm
I've monitored my router to see how much bandwidth is used by my telo while on a call and it runs around 83.7k up and another 83.7k down. I would think 512k up should be sufficient. You will want to configure QoS in your router to give priority to your ooma over your other internet traffic. That should allow you to use your phone even if you have other stuff going on without having garbled conversations as you had described with your Verizon femtocell.
#78855 by vicw
Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:44 pm
Yes, I've done that. High QOS priority only to the Telo and the Verizon Femto. We'll see how that goes. So far, so good. I'm waiting on our phone number to be ported over, but in the meantime, I call forwarded the old number to the temporary Ooma number. Haven't had a complaints from wife so far, and trust me, she would let me know.

Right now I'm testing with the Telo in front again. Confirmed that the Synology does capture the true external IP address, whereas the router was showing the IP assigned to it from the Telo. In itself that won't solve my problem. unless I can find a way to feedback that address to the router, I think. Don't have a clue if that's possible. Wouldn't it be nice if the Telo did that job?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests