[cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

Mon Apr 10 13:47:27 EDT 2006

For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement.  You can
enter a Loopback address.  We use EIGRP at our site.  VG224 does not
support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF.  RIP could cost you
a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported).  I didn't
feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you
have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you).
The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your
default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.

My philosophy is:  These are phones, there is a much higher expectation
of uptime and low-latency.  Do I want to support fancy and complicated
or do I want to support stable and simple?

As for the SCCP/MGCP:

That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP.  However, if
you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't
in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address
in CCM.

If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP
provides did you want?  Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax
machine or credit card machine?  If analog phones, will the phones even
support the features you want to use?

In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM.
You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog
port as well.  In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to
point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports
are done on the CCM.  If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may
be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make
changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to
administer for every line.

So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and
simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.

I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.

JM

  _____  

From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has
more features.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer overrun

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad at cityofevanston.org>  

	To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>  ; Ed Leatherman
<mailto:ealeatherman at gmail.com>  

	Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 

	Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM

	Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

	I use a VG224.  I have currently not been able to find a way to
make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as
CCM is concerned.  If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the
MAC address so that doesn't work.  If you're using MGCP, you enter the
IP address of the device.  Using a loopback address will not work.  It
looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.

	Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm
sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not
as robust.  Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean
you can use them the way you may be wanting to.  Otherwise it's a pretty
nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.

	My $.02

	JM

  _____  

	From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
	Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
	To: Ed Leatherman
	Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
	Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

	I like the idea of redundant links. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
	Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
	Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
	(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
	Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
	50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer overrun

		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman at gmail.com>  

		To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>  

		Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 

		Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM

		Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

		I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer,
the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement
that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on
remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port
density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement.
Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the
224's. 

		We've been using the 248's in our health sciences
center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on
them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a
high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you
turn them down. 

		On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote: 

		Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two
analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires
128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with
the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards
them rather than starting a new with vg224s. 

		Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for
IPSEC software. Do I need this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
		Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
		Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph,
Ontario N1G 2W1
		(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
		Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
		50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:   buffer
overrun

		_______________________________________________
		cisco-voip mailing list
		cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
		https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

		-- 
		Ed Leatherman
		IP Telephony Coordinator
		West Virginia University
		Telecommunications and Network Operations 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060410/bee1e691/attachment-0001.html 