Server and Client Side Recommended Port Ranges for SFB Environment

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-172548%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EServer%20and%20Client%20Side%20Recommended%20Port%20Ranges%20for%20SFB%20Environment%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-172548%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EFollowing%20are%20the%20details%20taken%20from%20or%20as%20per%20Microsoft's%20Recommendations%20for%20Fixing%20the%20Usage%20of%20Ports%20for%20various%20modalities%20or%20per%20session%20type%20like%20Audio%2C%20Video%20or%20AppSharing%20....%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ECLIENT%20SIDE%20PORT%20RANGE%20AND%20COUNT%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EClientAudioPort%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2050020-50039%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B(%20Client%20Audio%20Port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3Bcount%2020%20)%3CBR%20%2F%3EClientVideoPort%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2058000-580019%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B(%20Client%20Video%20Port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3Bcount%2020%20)%3CBR%20%2F%3EClientAppSharingPort%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2042000-42019%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B(%20Client%20AppSharing%20Port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20count%2020%20)%3CBR%20%2F%3EClientFileTransferPort%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2042021-42041%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20(%20Client%20FileTransfer%20Port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20count%2020%20)%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3ESERVER%20SIDE%20PORT%20RANGE%20AND%20COUNT%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EAppSharing%20Port%20Range%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2040801%20--%2049149%20(%20Server%20AppSharing%20port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3Bcount%208348%20)%3CBR%20%2F%3EAudio%20Port%20Range%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%2049152%20--%2057500%26nbsp%3B%20(%20Server%20Audio%20port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20count%208348%20)%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3EVideo%20Port%20Range%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B57501%20--%2065535%26nbsp%3B%20(%20Server%20Video%20port%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20count%208348)%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ENow%20we%20are%20checking%20the%20detailed%20reports%20for%20these%20sessions%20to%20check%20on%20the%20bandwidth%20consumption%20happening%20for%20these%20kind%20of%20sessions%20for%20which%20have%20configured%20client%20side%20reports%20based%20the%20ports%20recommended%20above%20as%20well%20as%20the%20server%20side%20reports%20recommended%20as%20shown%20above%20again%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EHowever%20we%20can%20see%20huge%20variance%20in%20the%20client%20side%20report%20vs%20server%20side%20report%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EChecking%20and%20digging%20in%20to%20the%20details%20of%20the%20report%20shows%20that%20there%20are%20other%20ports%20rather%20say%20a%20huge%20number%20of%20other%20port%20being%20used%20at%20the%20client%20side%20compare%20to%20what%20we%20have%20configured%20as%20part%20of%20Set-CsConferencingConfiguration%20so%20that%20all%20clients%20use%20the%20ports%20in%20fact%20rather%20say%20%22USE%20ONLY%20THE%20PORTS%22%20defined%20in%20the%20configuration%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3Efor%20example%20we%20have%20this%20config%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EClientVideoPort%2058000-580019%20(%20Client%20Video%20Port%20count%2020%20)%20we%20expect%20that%20SFB%20Client%20will%20not%20use%20another%20port%20video%20related%20info%20exchange%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EWhereas%20i%20can%20see%20this%20in%20the%20port%20that%20there%20many%20other%20ports%20being%20used%20during%20the%20same%20session%20which%20Microsoft%20has%20not%20mentioned%20anywhere%20in%20there%20documentation%20which%20is%20causing%20a%20big%20difference%20between%20server%20side%20vs%20client%20side%20reporting%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EHow%2C%20Where%20or%20Who%20can%20confirm%20this%20from%20Microsoft%20I%20need%20resolution%20for%20this%20ASAP%20i%20mean%20the%20complete%20details%20on%20port%20usage%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CHR%20%2F%3E%0A%3CP%3EAn%20Extremist%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-172548%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EServer%20Side%20Client%20Side%20Port%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-179184%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Server%20and%20Client%20Side%20Recommended%20Port%20Ranges%20for%20SFB%20Environment%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-179184%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechnet.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Flibrary%2Fjj204872(v%3Docs.15).aspx%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Ftechnet.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Flibrary%2Fjj204872(v%3Docs.15).aspx%3C%2FA%3E%20this%20link%20shows%20why%20this%20script%20for%20application%20server%20role%20only%20shows%20audio%20settings%20as%20only%20audio%20ports%20are%20included%20for%20QoS%20by%20Design%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-176946%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Server%20and%20Client%20Side%20Recommended%20Port%20Ranges%20for%20SFB%20Environment%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-176946%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CSPAN%20class%3D%22lia-inline-image-display-wrapper%20lia-image-align-inline%22%20style%3D%22width%3A%20999px%3B%22%3E%3CIMG%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fgxcuf89792.i.lithium.com%2Ft5%2Fimage%2Fserverpage%2Fimage-id%2F31113iB0C9B74AFD9F6202%2Fimage-size%2Flarge%3Fv%3D1.0%26amp%3Bpx%3D999%22%20alt%3D%22SFBQoS.JPG%22%20title%3D%22SFBQoS.JPG%22%20%2F%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CBLOCKQUOTE%3E%3CHR%20%2F%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F119480%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40hariom%20jindal%3C%2FA%3E%20wrote%3A%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CP%3EHello%20Himanshu%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3Etry%20running%20this%20QoS%20script%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fgallery.technet.microsoft.com%2FLync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Fgallery.technet.microsoft.com%2FLync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5%3C%2FA%3E%20and%20also%20check%20GPOs.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ESometimes%20incorrect%20configuration%20causes%20such%20issues.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThanks%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EHari%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CHR%20%2F%3E%3C%2FBLOCKQUOTE%3E%0A%3CP%3EWhy%20does%20this%20script%20only%20shows%20the%20audio%20ports%20for%20Application%20Server%20whereas%20upon%20checking%20the%20complete%20details%20for%20the%20application%20server%20role%20there%20are%20video%20and%20app%20sharing%20port%20ranges%20as%20well%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-176898%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Server%20and%20Client%20Side%20Recommended%20Port%20Ranges%20for%20SFB%20Environment%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-176898%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHello%20Himanshu%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3Etry%20running%20this%20QoS%20script%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fgallery.technet.microsoft.com%2FLync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Fgallery.technet.microsoft.com%2FLync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5%3C%2FA%3E%20and%20also%20check%20GPOs.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ESometimes%20incorrect%20configuration%20causes%20such%20issues.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThanks%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EHari%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
Frequent Contributor

Following are the details taken from or as per Microsoft's Recommendations for Fixing the Usage of Ports for various modalities or per session type like Audio, Video or AppSharing ....

CLIENT SIDE PORT RANGE AND COUNT

ClientAudioPort                            50020-50039     ( Client Audio Port                     count 20 )
ClientVideoPort                            58000-580019   ( Client Video Port                     count 20 )
ClientAppSharingPort                  42000-42019     ( Client AppSharing Port            count 20 )
ClientFileTransferPort                  42021-42041      ( Client FileTransfer Port            count 20 )

SERVER SIDE PORT RANGE AND COUNT

AppSharing Port Range              40801 -- 49149 ( Server AppSharing port           count 8348 )
Audio Port Range                        49152 -- 57500  ( Server Audio port                      count 8348 ) 
Video Port Range                         57501 -- 65535  ( Server Video port                      count 8348)

 

Now we are checking the detailed reports for these sessions to check on the bandwidth consumption happening for these kind of sessions for which have configured client side reports based the ports recommended above as well as the server side reports recommended as shown above again

However we can see huge variance in the client side report vs server side report,

Checking and digging in to the details of the report shows that there are other ports rather say a huge number of other port being used at the client side compare to what we have configured as part of Set-CsConferencingConfiguration so that all clients use the ports in fact rather say "USE ONLY THE PORTS" defined in the configuration,

for example we have this config

ClientVideoPort 58000-580019 ( Client Video Port count 20 ) we expect that SFB Client will not use another port video related info exchange,

Whereas i can see this in the port that there many other ports being used during the same session which Microsoft has not mentioned anywhere in there documentation which is causing a big difference between server side vs client side reporting

How, Where or Who can confirm this from Microsoft I need resolution for this ASAP i mean the complete details on port usage


An Extremist

3 Replies

Hello Himanshu,

 

try running this QoS script https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/Lync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5 and also check GPOs.

 

Sometimes incorrect configuration causes such issues.

 

Thanks

Hari

SFBQoS.JPG


@hariom jindal wrote:

Hello Himanshu,

 

try running this QoS script https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/Lync-QoS-Configuration-d90675b5 and also check GPOs.

 

Sometimes incorrect configuration causes such issues.

 

Thanks

Hari


Why does this script only shows the audio ports for Application Server whereas upon checking the complete details for the application server role there are video and app sharing port ranges as well

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj204872(v=ocs.15).aspx this link shows why this script for application server role only shows audio settings as only audio ports are included for QoS by Design