Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#66416 by tommies
Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:58 pm
drdavedmin wrote:You have been very helpful and I really appreciate it. The subnet thing you mention is very likely the problem. My router was already using the 172. series of IP addresses, which the Ooma also uses. I can reset my router to use a 10. series or a 192. series. Would that be likely to cure the issue?

It's probably create more (routing) problem than it cures.

Ooma already use the subnet 172.27.35.n, Where n will be different on each device connect directly to it.

Then you can use 172.27.36.m for your router DHCP, or turn off DHCP and change the rourter to bridge mode, i.e. it's behave like a dump switch.

However, I'm agree that double NAT is better, and against using the router in 'bridge' mode since telo primary is a voip device and it is not a fully functional router. A chaining double NAT is not a problem, imho. a branching triple NAT will be if there is no server acting as bridge.

PS.
The wording 'bridge' mode on most router is very misleading. it should be 'switch' mode because a network bridge is a hub where different subnets interconnect, and traffics between different subnets will be alowed/denied depending of the policies setup by admins.
#66430 by drdavedmin
Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:46 am
My Apple router gives me 3 choices for DHCP:

a 172.16.x.x series - where I can set the x numbers,
plus 10.0
plus 192.168.

Currently I use the 172.16 choice with a 1 - 172.16.1 and the router address is 172.16.1.1

Since the Ooma Telo uses 172.27.35.1 for its address and 172.27.35.2 for the DHCP starting point, are we saying there should be no DHCP conflict with my 172.16.1.x setup?

Dave
#66440 by murphy
Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:02 am
drdavedmin wrote:My Apple router gives me 3 choices for DHCP:

a 172.16.x.x series - where I can set the x numbers,
plus 10.0
plus 192.168.

Currently I use the 172.16 choice with a 1 - 172.16.1 and the router address is 172.16.1.1

Since the Ooma Telo uses 172.27.35.1 for its address and 172.27.35.2 for the DHCP starting point, are we saying there should be no DHCP conflict with my 172.16.1.x setup?

Dave

Correct. There will be no conflict.
#78012 by raincity
Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:42 pm
To clarify what was covered in various previous posts...

If you are looking to disable DHCP on the Ooma Hub and put your router behind it, you can effectively disable DHCP by configuring the Ooma Hub to only provide a single DHCP IP address. When you connect your DHCP client (router) to the Hub, it will be assigned the single available address and the DHCP server on the Ooma hub will not respond to additional DHCP requests.

I have my router configured as a DHCP server and was having a problem because both the Ooma Hub and router were responding to DHCP Client requests. (ICMP is configured to pass through on my router.) Configuring the Hub to provide only a single IP address resolved the problem and is working fine.
#92122 by atjaguarx
Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:01 pm
nn5i wrote:Naah, it's a phone, not a router. Give us a way to turn off all router-like functions such as a DHCP server.
.

I agree with everyone in this post. I have an Ooma Telo. Give us the ability to turn off all router-like functions. Its a VOIP device, not a router. Let the big boys handle the routing and Ooma handle the VOIP.
#92126 by scottlindner
Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:39 pm
atjaguarx wrote:
nn5i wrote:Naah, it's a phone, not a router. Give us a way to turn off all router-like functions such as a DHCP server.
.

I agree with everyone in this post. I have an Ooma Telo. Give us the ability to turn off all router-like functions. Its a VOIP device, not a router. Let the big boys handle the routing and Ooma handle the VOIP.


For this very reason, I put my Ooma's behind my router and use Tomato for QoS.
#92604 by nn5i
Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:33 am
scottlindner wrote: ... For this very reason, I put my Ooma's behind my router and use Tomato for QoS.

I do the same, except with DD-WRT. I've never tried Tomato. If you have, could you give some comparisons (Tomato vs DD-WRT) on ease of use with Ooma, and performance with Ooma?
#92631 by scottlindner
Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:19 am
nn5i wrote:
scottlindner wrote: ... For this very reason, I put my Ooma's behind my router and use Tomato for QoS.

I do the same, except with DD-WRT. I've never tried Tomato. If you have, could you give some comparisons (Tomato vs DD-WRT) on ease of use with Ooma, and performance with Ooma?


I don't want to get too far off topic from Ooma. Just take this as one man's opinion. I have found DD-WRT to have a gorgeous yet poorly integrated user interface where Tomato is completely stripped down but actually has more integration such as under the device list to create a new entry in the Static DHCP list and wireless filter list so you don't have to copy or type the MAC address. The bandwidth monitor feature is nice from time to time. I also have tried QoS on DD-WRT and simply turning it on without any rules would cause me all sorts of poorly quality problems. Maybe that has been fixed a long time ago. I have read that Tomato will give you better wireless performance over DD-WRT. The reason is that Tomato is completely stripped down to the bare minimum to keep it lean and mean. Don't expect a sexy UI. I actually prefer using a variant of Tomato called TomatoUSB and of that I like using the "mega" build called TomatoUSB VPN. DD-WRT and Tomato are all built using the OpenWRT source so they are essentially the same code but different builds, packaging and integration. Tomato and TomatoUSB do not have comprehensive databases on the hardware supported or how to flash the hardware. I have put Tomato on tons of routers that are not on the supported list just by using DD-WRTs database of routers. The key things to remember are: Does it have VxWorks, is it a MIPS R1 or R2 processor, how much flash and RAM does it have, and do you want the 2.4 or 2.6 kernel?

I hope that wasn't too much of a firehose on Tomato.
#93898 by FX4
Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:29 am
Let me echo what others have said. I just wasted two days troubleshooting a problem that turned out to be nothing more than the Ooma DHCP server dishing addresses. I use an ACL to block DHCP requests and responses from the Ooma. I rewired my network and kind of forgot about my hack which in turn caused all kinds of problems and left me scratching my head for two days. In reality the problem would have never occurred if I was able to just turn off this damn DHCP server on this device. Big boys play with VoIP and we don't need it idiot proofed and in fact the idiot proof features cause more problems than they fix. My router is an excellent DHCP server and I have no intentions ever of letting Ooma control my network. My Ooma sits behind the router and not in front of it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests