Is anyone in Cisco looking into this or able to comment? Cheers Tim ... View more

OK - First things first - a pain in the neck but all switches now on the latest firmware! David - In answer to the points you have asked me to clarify, I have already considered all of them before posting here but here your points with relevant comments: what does the error  log show ? NOTHING (i.e. error free operation other than system restarts Link up/Link Down Messages) Regarding Spanning Tree: Switch 2 is Spanning Tree Root Bridge (configured with the lowest bridge priority to ensure this, there are no spanning tree issues, there are only 1GB link paths between switchess also, and as mentioned I have set the admin speed so there is ZERO chances of a root-bridge path occuring either through a 100Mb port or a 1GB port operating at 100Mb initial setup of cabling remembering there are four combo ports for SFP on the 24 port model.       (Combo SFP slots  shared copper/SFP a common  port number with only 1 port active at a time. ) Understood this is not an issue ports 11,12,23,24 are common with SFPs and cannot be used for copper OR SFP but not both. rmon and etherlike statistics for the interfaces to check for a broadcast storm or multicast storm Presumably this would be due to a spanning tree / switching loop, I understand spanning tree and have it configured and working well, this is not a problem In addition to this I would point out that link aggregation has been active for probably 12 months or more on this network and nobody noticed that throughput was bottlenecking until I did some isolated tests of throughput accross switches and identified a definate issue (it was continuing complaints about average network performance, that caused this to be investigated) If spanning tree was a problem the network would pretty much cease functioning within minutes/hours, and any other broadcast storm would be an issue regardless of link aggregation or not (we have experience this inadvertatly in the past don't worry ) state of Spanning tree on the interfaces, are there any blocking ports? No Blocking ports - Correct root bridge on each switch as well check the configuration of the LAG interfaces and see if LACP is checked. Yes - Using LACP Hopefully you have set  port speeds back to auto negotiation Well this isn't very important IMHO but I'll do it of you like, I only set them manually to see if it made a difference (which it didn't - and regardless, ports are linking at 1Gb anyway) might be worthwhile using a disruptive tool, after hours    to check the wireing infrastructure as per screen capture below. It  used Time domain reflectometry to check cable quality, but it does kill  the link when it checks cables, it's a reasonable test of the cable  plant.. I have seen this tool before, in the most simple demonstration of this issue switches are side by side - and yes cables have been replaced (they are only 1M cables at the longest), cables can be eliminated from the equation - besides this issues occurs on ALL AGGREGATED LINKS (Including links to the older Linksys SRW224G4 switches which also support LACP) Sorry for the long post I think that answers your most important points and hopefully you can see I have given the issue appropriate consideration before posting again What do we do from here??!! I'm sure that you must be able to replicate this issue in a lab with 2 switches and 2 laptops and you will get the same results - am happy to securely forward you my switch configs as well if it helps ... View more

Hi Colin, FIrstly I have assumed you are using an external SIP providor for your poor quality calls (as opposed to FXO Lines) If you have a problem with external call quality then this would normally be either an internet configuration/bandwidth issue or external SIP provider issue (unfortunately not uncommon if you choose the wrong provider) Are you using the UC320 as your internet router? (this is recommended because it allows the UC320 to offer QoS prioritisation of voice bandwidth over PC internet bandwidth when configured correctly) When not using the UC320 as your internet router, it is likely that PC internet traffic will congest the network connection and cause serious call quality issues especially if there is no QoS configuration in your existing internet router (as in many cases I have unfortunately witnessed in the past) If you are not using the UC320 as your internet router and this is possible in your scenario I would strongly recommend it. During the WAN portion of your setup on the UC320 you are required to specify your outbound brandwidth available which also configures QoS rules for Voice/Data traffic in the UC320 Router. Make sure you accurately provide an outbound bandwidth value (you may wish to perform a broadband speed test on your connection to validate the upload/outbound bandwidth available on your internet connection, prior to configuring the UC320) If you have very low upstream internet bandwidth (e.g. less than 300k) you may wish to prefer the G729 codec for SIP trunk calls (if your provider supports this) If you have followed all the guidelines above, and you know that your internet bandwith is reliable, yet you still have external call quality issues, then the problem is most likely to be your SIP service provider ... View more

Hi, This is a really important feature, which is causing me grief, users cannot return missed calls easily, without using 'editdial' and most users do not understand why they should have to do this. It also affects users of the SPA525G2 Phone connected to UC320 who have imported their Personal Address book from their iPhones, they cannot dial any contacts without using the 'editdial' function. I have some business owners very annoyed about this 'feature' Is there some way I can have this change before the next firmware release via PMF or some other means? ... View more