network-clocks configuration.....

Answered Question
Jul 7th, 2009

Ok here is my setup.

Cisco 2851 ISR router

code: c2800nm-ipvoicek9-mz.124-13f.bin

WIC Slot 0: VWIC-2MFT-T1

WIC Slot 2: VWIC2-2MFT-T1/E1

WIC Slot 3: VWIC-2MFT-T1

controller T1 0/0/0

framing esf

linecode b8zs

pri-group timeslots 1-24 service mgcp

description PRI CIR

!

controller T1 0/0/1

framing esf

linecode b8zs

pri-group timeslots 1-24 service mgcp

description PRI CIR

!

controller T1 0/2/0

framing esf

clock source internal

linecode b8zs

cablelength short 133

channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24

description T1 to Remote #1

!

controller T1 0/2/1

framing esf

clock source internal

linecode b8zs

channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24

description T1 to Remote #2

!

controller T1 0/3/0

framing esf

linecode b8zs

pri-group timeslots 1-24 service mgcp

description PRI Circuit

!

controller T1 0/3/1

description not in use

So 2 days ago, the T1 circuits on 0/2/0 and 0/2/1 were bouncing randomly and taking many slipped seconds.

I found that no clocking was setup on either side of the T1 which I corrected by adding clock source internal to 0/2/0 and 0/2/1 above. I also removed the following 3 commands as it was causing the T1's to stay down when I added clock source internal on the controller cards.

network-clock-select 1 T1 0/3/1

network-clock-select 2 T1 0/3/0

network-clock-select 3 T1 0/0/1

but left these on

network-clock-participate wic 0

network-clock-participate wic 2

network-clock-participate wic 3

So far my T1 circuits have remained stable but now my 3 PRI circuits continue to take slipped seconds.....how do I fix this?

What settings should I use here, Cisco is so convoluted in their explanations of this configuration, looking for someone to clarify this the best they can.

What should my clock settings be in this scenario and why?

Currently all clock is being pulled from the backplane, is this bad?

r1.henderson-cad.findlay#sh network-clocks

Network Clock Configuration

---------------------------

Priority Clock Source Clock State Clock Type

10 Backplane GOOD PLL

Current Primary Clock Source

---------------------------

Priority Clock Source Clock State Clock Type

10 Backplane GOOD PLL

r1.henderson-cad.findlay#

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by Paolo Bevilacqua about 7 years 2 months ago

I appreciate your amends here.

I never speak without knowing well what I'm talking about, if you have further questions just open a new thread.

Correct Answer by Paolo Bevilacqua about 7 years 4 months ago

You have been rude in first place with continued misuse of the rating system.

You have been unable to read a simple and sound technical advice, that you eventually will recognize to be true.

As I said I'm actually happy your issues and frustration stay confined within your place.

You're welcome to keep rating "1" and further make a fool of yourself.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 3 (8 ratings)
Loading.
Paolo Bevilacqua Tue, 07/07/2009 - 12:25

It is bad in the sense that some controller will be taking slips and that prevents fax to work, if you're not bothered by that it's ok.

You should probably take network-clock from 0/3/0.

stu_syn Tue, 07/07/2009 - 12:48

Hi,

You don't say what these circuits are - are the Primary Rate circuits from the PSTN, from a different PBX or what?

Generally speaking, having PRIs clocked from the backplane is, indeed, bad.

Cheers,

Stu

glenthms Tue, 07/07/2009 - 12:49

They are PRI circuits into the PSTN. Why is it bad? Tell me. Nowhere do I show any documentation that says its bad. Where are you getting that its bad?

Paolo Bevilacqua Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:17

First of all, if you are the person that rated 1 my post above, you should review your attitude, as what I told you is 100% true and correct.

Second, I told you why it is bad, can't you read ?

Third, it is not all pri circuits, only one of them is.

I also told you where to take primary clock from and you keep asking ?

glenthms Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:21

There was no attitude in my response , your response was not helpful it was more opinion and no factual information to go off of. If its 100% true and correct where do you base this from is all I was wanting to know. Is this a post from Cisco website? Last I checked I can read just fine, I'm reading your post right now and don't believe it was helpful that's why I gave you a 1.

Paolo Bevilacqua Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:27

Let put it this way, take your road and good luck.

I'm happy not to be a customer or coworker of you.

glenthms Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:28

This was never a personal issue, I was simply asking for clarification on why. No need to be rude in posts. Sorry that we didn't see eye to eye.

Correct Answer
Paolo Bevilacqua Tue, 07/07/2009 - 13:34

You have been rude in first place with continued misuse of the rating system.

You have been unable to read a simple and sound technical advice, that you eventually will recognize to be true.

As I said I'm actually happy your issues and frustration stay confined within your place.

You're welcome to keep rating "1" and further make a fool of yourself.

glenthms Wed, 09/09/2009 - 13:01

Wanted to say thanks for taking your time to answer this question several months back. Had prior posts where people would cite information but I had to go on their word and it caused me some headaches. This is a sharing community and I shouldn't have marked you a 1. Hope this redeems previous posts.

Correct Answer
Paolo Bevilacqua Thu, 09/10/2009 - 04:10

I appreciate your amends here.

I never speak without knowing well what I'm talking about, if you have further questions just open a new thread.

Actions

This Discussion