[cisco-voip] Digit stripping on a Route-Group...

[Ted Nugent]

I'm not 100% certain on this but I beleive that the
mechanism for initiating a fallback to h323 is a loss
of MGCP keepalives to callmanager (TCP 2428 I think?).
Which isn't likely to occur if CM is up and running.
Unless of course as Ryan mentioned MGCP went
completely belly up. However in most MGCP bugs that
I've come across the gateway is still (at least
partially) registered with CM and its doubtful that
this would cause a fallback to H323.
As you stated I guess it would really depends on the
severity of the MGCP failure for it to be worth it.


--- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not seriously looking to DO anything... I am
> proposing an idea
> and seeing if it is viable.
> 
> The goal is maximum redundancy and to that end, I
> was thinking running
> MGCP and H.323 on the same gateway. If MGCP fails,
> go with H.323
> (while MGCP is active, all the H.323 commands are
> disabled anyway).
> 
> To implement this on the CCM side, I was going to
> put the gateways in
> the system twice, once as MGCP, once as H.323. Then
> create two
> route-groups, one for each and then list the MGCP
> first int he RL.
> 
> The theory seems sound, but will MGCP fail enough
> for it to go back
> into H.323 mode? Obviously, if MGCP is down from the
> CCM side, CCM
> will work its way down the route-list to the H.323
> entry and try that.
> But inbound calls may not be aware that MGCP has
> failed enough and
> won't try H.323 (as a guess... I am not sure if this
> is going to
> work).
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On 7/17/06, Ted Nugent <tednugent69 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I guess I did misunderstand part of the question
> > judging from the other responses... Can you just
> > clarify... you're looking to run both MGCP and
> H323 on
> > the same gateways? Both Protocols on the same
> gateway
> > on a seperate trunks? Or are you just looking at
> using
> > an MGCP gateway as primary and a second H323 as a
> > backup?
> >
> >
> > --- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So, I want to use MGCP as my primary gateway
> > > protocol and H.323 as a
> > > backup (no SRST, no remote sites).
> > >
> > > The plan is to add the gateways to CCM as H.323
> AND
> > > MGCP and have two
> > > route-groups, one for MGCP and one for H.323 and
> > > then combine them
> > > into a route-list with MGCP first.
> > >
> > > The problem is that I want to strip the 9 for
> MGCP
> > > (on the route-group
> > > or device) and not do so for H.323.
> > >
> > > First off, as a design is this retarded? Second,
> > > should I strip the 9
> > > on the gateway or change the H.323 dial-peers to
> not
> > > include the 9 and
> > > strip it on the route list?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > >
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com