<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: VoIP Latency when in-line on 4255 in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/voip-latency-when-in-line-on-4255/m-p/1468195#M67518</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi David,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The first thing I would suggest doing is browsing&amp;nbsp; through the recent events from the sensor for any which may have been&amp;nbsp; triggered by traffic coming from addresses in use by your VoIP system.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; In the absence of any relevant events, you can create an Event Action&amp;nbsp; Override for Risk Rating 0-100 to add the Produce Alert action, setup a&amp;nbsp; few more calls and then check the event store again.&amp;nbsp; The EAO will cause&amp;nbsp; all signatures, even those without the Produce Alert action configured&amp;nbsp; by default, to log events to the event store. When you're done testing,&amp;nbsp; disable the EAO to prevent wasting resources on the sensor.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you still don't see any events, it's possible that&amp;nbsp; the sensor is oversubscribed despite the fact that your capture may&amp;nbsp; appear to be well under the 600Mb documented for that model.&amp;nbsp; The 600Mb&amp;nbsp; metric is measured using a sensor with completely default signature sets&amp;nbsp; and transfering "media rich" traffic (i.e. a lower number of higher&amp;nbsp; volume streams), while in promiscuous mode.&amp;nbsp; The "transactional" rating&amp;nbsp; is 500Mb, under the same conditions.&amp;nbsp; Voice is generally considered&amp;nbsp; "transactional" traffic.&amp;nbsp; When deploying a sensor inline, a very rough&amp;nbsp; estimate is to shave 20% off the expected performance, so you'd end up&amp;nbsp; with 400Mb in this case.&amp;nbsp; This would be the theoretical maximum of the&amp;nbsp; aggregate traffic in both directions.&amp;nbsp; If you start altering the default&amp;nbsp; signatures that Cisco provides the performance can begin to drop off&amp;nbsp; rapidly depending on the complexity and number of signatures you tune..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If,&amp;nbsp; after double check in the signatures firing, defaulting the signature&amp;nbsp; set and checking the traffic rate (which should be monitored at peak&amp;nbsp; times, or at least those during which you are consistently experiencing&amp;nbsp; the problem) you are still unable to explain the degredation, it may be&amp;nbsp; worth it to open a TAC case.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best Regards,&lt;BR /&gt; JT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:00:56 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Justin Teixeira</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-04-30T18:00:56Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VoIP Latency when in-line on 4255</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/voip-latency-when-in-line-on-4255/m-p/1468194#M67517</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are experiencing an issue with latency when we place our remote office traffic in-line using a 4255.&amp;nbsp; The latency is impacting our VoIP traffic and causing voice quality issues.&amp;nbsp; The problem goes away if the 4255 is (physically) bypassed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From looking at packet captures, the traffic through the interface pairs does not seem excessive and is well below the 600Mbs the appliance is rated for. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Are there any settings on the the device or signatures that I should look at tuning to help reduce the latency?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:58:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/voip-latency-when-in-line-on-4255/m-p/1468194#M67517</guid>
      <dc:creator>davidelon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:58:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VoIP Latency when in-line on 4255</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/voip-latency-when-in-line-on-4255/m-p/1468195#M67518</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi David,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The first thing I would suggest doing is browsing&amp;nbsp; through the recent events from the sensor for any which may have been&amp;nbsp; triggered by traffic coming from addresses in use by your VoIP system.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; In the absence of any relevant events, you can create an Event Action&amp;nbsp; Override for Risk Rating 0-100 to add the Produce Alert action, setup a&amp;nbsp; few more calls and then check the event store again.&amp;nbsp; The EAO will cause&amp;nbsp; all signatures, even those without the Produce Alert action configured&amp;nbsp; by default, to log events to the event store. When you're done testing,&amp;nbsp; disable the EAO to prevent wasting resources on the sensor.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you still don't see any events, it's possible that&amp;nbsp; the sensor is oversubscribed despite the fact that your capture may&amp;nbsp; appear to be well under the 600Mb documented for that model.&amp;nbsp; The 600Mb&amp;nbsp; metric is measured using a sensor with completely default signature sets&amp;nbsp; and transfering "media rich" traffic (i.e. a lower number of higher&amp;nbsp; volume streams), while in promiscuous mode.&amp;nbsp; The "transactional" rating&amp;nbsp; is 500Mb, under the same conditions.&amp;nbsp; Voice is generally considered&amp;nbsp; "transactional" traffic.&amp;nbsp; When deploying a sensor inline, a very rough&amp;nbsp; estimate is to shave 20% off the expected performance, so you'd end up&amp;nbsp; with 400Mb in this case.&amp;nbsp; This would be the theoretical maximum of the&amp;nbsp; aggregate traffic in both directions.&amp;nbsp; If you start altering the default&amp;nbsp; signatures that Cisco provides the performance can begin to drop off&amp;nbsp; rapidly depending on the complexity and number of signatures you tune..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If,&amp;nbsp; after double check in the signatures firing, defaulting the signature&amp;nbsp; set and checking the traffic rate (which should be monitored at peak&amp;nbsp; times, or at least those during which you are consistently experiencing&amp;nbsp; the problem) you are still unable to explain the degredation, it may be&amp;nbsp; worth it to open a TAC case.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best Regards,&lt;BR /&gt; JT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:00:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/voip-latency-when-in-line-on-4255/m-p/1468195#M67518</guid>
      <dc:creator>Justin Teixeira</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-04-30T18:00:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

