[cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
Linsemier, Matthew
MLinsemier at apcapital.com
Wed Aug 30 23:00:42 EDT 2006
What is the reasoning for not supporting the FacilityIE or having some
IOS have a feature that could read from FacilityIE and then put it in
the DisplayIE or NotifyIE fields for delivery to CallManager?
Matt
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Wes Sisk
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:14 PM
To: Linsemier, Matthew
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net; Matt Slaga (US); Jason Burwell
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
You will get calling name with h.323 4.2 depending on how it is
delivered:
You will see it if delivered by:
DisplayIE
NotifyIE
You will not see it if it is delivered by FacilityIE. Delivery by
FacilityIE is the most common form we encounter today. This is commonly
referred to as 'c-nam', 'cname', or 'ni-3 name delivery'.
/Wes
On Aug 30, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Linsemier, Matthew wrote:
This has been an issue since we installed CallManager almost 4 years
ago. If Cisco is going to move people in a new direction H.323/SIP it
certainly needs to support the same feature set. Can anyone confirm
that they can get Calling Name in CCM 4.2? We have had calling name in
MGCP for all this time and to remove this would cause serious havoc
amongst my users.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Jason Burwell; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
H323 does support calling party number, just not name. Like Jason
mentioned before, the options are there and you can see name traverse
inbound in debugs, but the gateway does not send it on to CallManager.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Burwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:36 PM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
We have just purchased CVP and are being told that we can no longer use
MGCP gateways and must migrate to H323. According to what I have heard
here, H323 will not support Caller Name but will H323 support Calling
Party Number capability?
Jason
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Aarons
(US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:52 PM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
I believe the issue is with CallManager not supporting both types of
facility ie as you can see the Calling Party Name in the router's debug
isdn q931.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Linsemier,
Matthew
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:11 PM
To: Matt Slaga (US); Joe Pollere (US); Nick Kassel;
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
Calling Name/Number is one of the main reasons we utilize MGCP over
H.323. This coupled with failover (which seems to be handled much more
gracefully then in an H.323 environment) keep us on this protocol. If
H.323 could handle Calling Name, I would definitely make the move. It
would certainly make fax integration with products such as Unity or
XMedius fax much easier. I, however, find myself in a position where I
couldn't possibly take away features that my users have come to expect
and love.
I did hear rumblings that H.323 was going to support Calling Name in a
later IOS release. The information is there on the router, just not
getting processed. Can any of you Cisco folks comment (off the record)?
-Matt
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:00 PM
To: Joe Pollere (US); Nick Kassel; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] MGCP vs H323
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.
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the
use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this
communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither this information block, the typed
name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to
constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete this
communication from your computer. Thank you.
________________________________
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the
use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this
communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither this information block, the typed
name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to
constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete this
communication 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.
________________________________
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.
________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely
for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not
the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither this
information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything
else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic
signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is
included in this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately contact me and delete this communication from
your computer. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20060830/cd6653f8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list