[cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

Tue Apr 11 09:23:40 EDT 2006

Just a few months ago I had tac working feverishly on several usability
issues with the vg224s.  Their fix:  They replaced the vg224s with
vg248s.

Redundancy is not fully capable on any of the models as they all have a
single power supply.  If you are that worried about redundancy, get the
CMM with FXS modules.

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

Interesting, I just got a note back from my SE with what I'm sure was
'cut and pasted' advantages to the vg224 and it had redundancy in there.
It will be interesting to see what you find out.

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman at gmail.com>  
	To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>  
	Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad at cityofevanston.org>  ;
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:26 AM
	Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248

	Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the
vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...

	This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden
real good)
	If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC
address for f0/0 in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine.
you can shut down f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the
f0/1 interface. I dont have any additional details yet but that sounds
promising.. I'm trying to get an official nod that this setup would be
TAC supported. 

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

		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
<mailto:JMad at cityofevanston.org>  

		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
<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 <mailto: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

		_______________________________________________
		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 

-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060411/9b956969/attachment-0001.html 