Need extra help installing your Ooma Hub or Telo system? Let us know.
#40382 by jcook123
Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:33 pm
I had my Telo working perfectly behind my Apple Airport Extreme Wireless Router which is attached to my cable modem.

I decided to test putting my Telo "in the middle" per Ooma's recommended setup.

Doing so produced this new Airport Extreme "issue". Light is Amber and it's asking me to resolve this "issue" as you can see

Airport-Ooma-Issue.png
Airport-Ooma-Issue.png (82 KiB) Viewed 6677 times


Okay, everyone, what's the answer here? My gut says the Telo either does NOT do DHCP and NAT or if it does, it can't do it effectively for all other critical devices plugged into my Airport Extreme Wireless Router.
#40401 by murphy
Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:41 am
Double NAT is not a problem. It's actually more secure than single NAT. I would pick the non-bridge mode button and forget about it. Hopefully the router will accept your decision.
#40478 by jcandali
Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:54 am
I have the same setup. Double NAT is fine. There is an option in the Aiport setup that lets you ignore (there's a checkbox) warnings. After you check it off and update you'll get a green light on the AP.
#41299 by cclauset
Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:40 am
jcandali wrote:I have the same setup. Double NAT is fine.


Double NAT is not generally considered "fine". It blocks the Back to My Mac feature of MobileMe, as well as most VPN connections. It can also cause issues with SSL-secured connections. If available, you should use your own router for QoS and place the Ooma *behind* it. The Ooma DHCP server is about as minimal as could be. I'd much rather have my Ooma configured in bridge mode so that it passes through the WLAN IP to my router, but still provides QoS to its traffic.
#42026 by jcook123
Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:09 pm
I can ABSOLUTELY verify now, after about a week, that DOUBLE NAT is indeed A PROBLEM. I've tested all sorts of configurations and with the Telo between my cable model and my Apple Airport Extreme, certain websites like news.yahoo.com don't resolve on ANY browser. Even brand new browsers with no cache...like Chrome that my computer nor Telo had ever seen.

There were other issues as well.

So the REAL QUESTION to everyone is:
1) Other than not being able to DIRECTLY access "Setup" webpage
OR
2) Having potential QoS problems

Is there ANY OTHER reason to have the Telo in Ooma's "recommended configuration". Because if there isn't, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND for anyone with the kind of bandwidth I have (19 Mbps Down and 3.5 Mbps Up) or even 50% of those numbers, to definitely put your Telo BEHIND your Airport Extreme and NOT in the recommended configuration. I'm convinced that QoS would NEVER be a problem with that kind of bandwidth up.

Any comments from anyone?
#42148 by cclauset
Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:16 am
jcook123 wrote:Is there ANY OTHER reason to have the Telo in Ooma's "recommended configuration".


No.

jcook123 wrote:anyone with the kind of bandwidth I have (19 Mbps Down and 3.5 Mbps Up) or even 50% of those numbers, to definitely put your Telo BEHIND your Airport Extreme and NOT in the recommended configuration. I'm convinced that QoS would NEVER be a problem with that kind of bandwidth up.


Even with such a large 'pipe', it's still possible to saturate your connection. This is one of the reasons why I use Cyberduck as my FTP client since I can throttle it's maximum up/down speed directly in the UI rather than most FTP clients that grab as much bandwidth as possible. QoS is a 'good thing', but Ooma has implemented their device in such a way that makes their recommended configuration not such a 'good thing'… And it's just too bad that Apple has chosen not to implement any type of QoS in their routers.
#42152 by Groundhound
Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:08 am
jcook123 wrote:So the REAL QUESTION to everyone is:
1) Other than not being able to DIRECTLY access "Setup" webpage
OR
2) Having potential QoS problems

Is there ANY OTHER reason to have the Telo in Ooma's "recommended configuration". Because if there isn't, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND for anyone with the kind of bandwidth I have (19 Mbps Down and 3.5 Mbps Up) or even 50% of those numbers, to definitely put your Telo BEHIND your Airport Extreme and NOT in the recommended configuration. I'm convinced that QoS would NEVER be a problem with that kind of bandwidth up.

Any comments from anyone?

Number 1 can be fixed with Telo behind the router, just make sure you don't put Telo into the router's DMZ.

Number 2 may or may not be an issue depending on your network demands for Internet bandwidth. If you are just web surfing or checking email you will not likely saturate the available bandwidth with the levels you have, and probably no QoS settings are necessary. If your demands are such that you are saturating your limits and QoS settings become necessary, option 2A does have one potential advantage - the QoS settings in the Telo (and Hub) are conditional in that they only kick in when a call is in progress. If you have Ooma behind your router with QoS set in the router giving a lower priority to all services other than VoIP, those lower priorities are always in effect (call or no call) for most routers. This becomes more of an issue when you have a variable bandwidth like that common with cable "powerboost". You have to set your QoS limits to match the sustained bandwidth, not the temporary boosted bandwidth in order for QoS to work, and this cuts off the benefit of these boost features.
#42155 by cclauset
Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:35 am
Groundhound wrote:the QoS settings in the Telo (and Hub) are conditional in that they only kick in when a call is in progress.


Which is exactly why I'd prefer to have my Telo in front of the router, but the DHCP/NAT service provided by the Telo is bare boned/minimal. If Ooma would enable the Telo to operate in Bridge mode, then we could all take advantage of the QoS settings in the Telo hardware and use a more full-featured DHCP server behind it. In understand the convenience of bundling the DHCP/NAT service into the Telo, but why force us to use it when it is so minimal?
#42157 by Groundhound
Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:04 am
cclauset wrote:Which is exactly why I'd prefer to have my Telo in front of the router, but the DHCP/NAT service provided by the Telo is bare boned/minimal. If Ooma would enable the Telo to operate in Bridge mode, then we could all take advantage of the QoS settings in the Telo hardware and use a more full-featured DHCP server behind it. In understand the convenience of bundling the DHCP/NAT service into the Telo, but why force us to use it when it is so minimal?

I think all of us would like that as an option. That it is not offered probably means there is an issue with providing QoS without DHCP/NAT. Just a guess on my part but that's the only reason I can think of for not offering a bridge mode.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests