[cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323

Wed Aug 30 11:59:52 EDT 2006

At this point, MGCP is able to provide name/number display on a PRI (if
provided from the carrier) whereas this is not yet possible in H323.

I have started to hear some rumblings within Cisco about MGCP being
slowly phased out and eventually being replaced with SIP and/or H323.
Sounds about right since Cisco has been shoving MGCP down everyone's
throat for the past three years that they would want to keep this down
to a rumbling.

Personally, I would only use MGCP when interconnecting with a PBX during
a migration to keep from having thousands of dial peers.  Or, if I
needed name/number display on a PRI.

Funny thing is (and this may be fixed now), but with FXO-M1s the only
way to get name/number display was with H323.  MGCP couldn't do it.
Sounds kind of backwards that it's just the opposite with a PRI

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joe Pollere
(US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:51 AM
To: Nick Kassel; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323

Nick,

This is from the GWGK course book:

Using H.323 as the call control protocol to a gateway has the following
advantages:

*	H.323 provides integrated access. Data and voice channels can be
placed on the same T1.

For example, for a service provider like AT&T, FR and PRI can be placed
on the same T1.

*	H.323 provides support for fractional PRI.
*	Gateways support caller ID on FXO ports. CallManager does not
support caller ID on FXO

ports from MGCP gateways.

*	Many more TDM interface types and signaling protocols-for
example, analog-Direct

Inward Dialed (DID), recEive and transMit (E&M), T1 Feature Group-D
(FGD), and E1

R2-can be used.

*	H.323 drops DSPs on hairpinned calls to enable capabilities like
ISDN video switching.
*	Gateway resident applications like Toolkit Command Language
(TCL) and voice

extensible markup language (VXML) can be used. TCL and VXML applications
provide

IVR features and call control functionality such as call forwarding,
conference calling, and

voice mail.

*	CAC network design with H.323 gatekeepers is often necessary
when voice and video

coexist in a network and Cisco CallManager is not the only call
controller in the network.

*	There are no release dependencies between gateways and Cisco
CallManager for

supporting new voice hardware. New hardware cards on Cisco IOS gateways
become

immediately available for use with all existing Cisco CallManager
releases.

*	H.323 enables a much easier migration architecture to SIP
because the fundamental

concepts of H.323 and SIP-for example, distributed control with
dial-peer

configurations-are the same.

*	Calls from IP phones through an H323 gateway are dropped on a
CallManager failover

unless SRST mode is enabled. With SRST enabled, the calls are preserved.

Using MGCP as the call control protocol to a gateway has the following
advantages:

*	Centralized configuration, control, and download from Cisco
CallManager
*	Better feature interaction with capabilities like caller ID and
name display
*	Easy, centralized dial-plan management
*	Gateway voice security features (voice encryption) as of Cisco
IOS Software Release

12.3.(5th)T

*	Q Signaling (QSIG) supplementary services as supported by Cisco
CallManager:

	*	- Cisco CallManager interconnects to a QSIG network
using an MGCP gateway and

T1 or E1 PRI connections to a private integrated services network
(PISN). The

MGCP gateway establishes the call connections. Using the PRI backhaul

mechanism, the gateway passes the QSIG messages to the Cisco CallManager
to set

up QSIG calls and send QSIG messages to control features.

	*	- When a PBX is connected to a gateway that is using
QSIG via H.323, calls that are

made between phones on the PBX and IP phones attached to the Cisco
CallManager

can have only basic PRI functionality. The gateway that terminates the
QSIG

protocol provides only the calling line ID (CLID) and DID number,
instead of Cisco

CallManager providing that information.

*	Enhanced call survivability:

	*	- Calls from IP phones through an MGCP gateway are
preserved on a CallManager

failover. This feature avoids dropped calls when applying the monthly
operating

system service release on the Cisco CallManagers

	*	- In SRST mode, calls from IP phones through an MGCP
gateway are preserved on

MGCP fallback for calls on analog or CAS circuits. Calls on ISDN
circuits are

dropped on fallback.

HTH's

Joe

________________________________

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Kassel
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:35 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323

Does anyone know if there is a document that lists the differences or
benefits of using either MGCP or H323.

I need to install a gateway for PSTN breakout in a DR site so it won't
be needed for redundancy or anything like that. 

All our branch offices currently use H323 and we have H323 for our HQ so
that they can be used for redundancy should be an issue with the local
branch PSTN. 

Just wondering whether it might be better to go with MGCP in this
instance.

Is it easier to mask the calling numbers with MGCP?

************************************************************************
***********************

The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential, some
or all
of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient
only.
Access to this e-mail by any other person is prohibited. If you are not
the
intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, printing, distribution
of,
replying to or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
this
e-mail, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender
immediately
should this e-mail have been incorrectly addressed or transmitted.

You accept that any instructions are deemed to have been given at the
time the
recipient(s) accesses them and that delivery receipt does not constitute
acknowledgement or receipt by the intended recipient(s). You accept that
there
may be a delay in processing the instructions received from e-mails
after
Charles Stanley has received them. You are advised that urgent, time
sensitive
and confidential communications should not be sent by e-mail. 

You acknowledge that e-mails are not secure and you accept the risk of
malfunction, viruses, unauthorised interference, mis-delivery or delay.
************************************************************************
************************

Charles Stanley & Co. Ltd
Registered Office: 25 Luke Street London EC2A 4AR

Tel: 0207 739 8200 Fax: 0207 739 7798
Registered in England No. 1903304

Charles Stanley Sutherlands and Charles Stanley Securities are divisions
of Charles Stanley & Co. Ltd

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Services Authority, Member of
the
London Stock Exchange, International Securities Markets Association, and
The London International Financial Futures &
Options Exchange.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
McAfee
VirusScan and SurfControl Email Filter software.

________________________________

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.

-----------------------------------------
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/20060830/8f898b83/attachment-0001.html 