[cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

Mon Apr 10 15:12:54 EDT 2006

Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.

Lelio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
  To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
  Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

  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 

    To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman 

    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 

      To: Lelio Fulgenzi 

      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 

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

  _______________________________________________
  cisco-voip mailing list
  cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
  https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060410/e2734397/attachment-0001.html 