[cisco-voip] Gatekeeper architecture question

[Jonathan Charles]

To be honest, I have never set an H.323 device up to CallManager
(other than a gateway) without using a Gatekeeper...

To be even more honest, I always just presumed it was a requirement of
H.323 end-points, and never really investigated it (just every time I
have set up an H.323 endpoint, a GK has been there and part of the BOM
and the SOW... so I just took it as the gospel...)

So, give it a try without a GK and tell us what happens... we really
only see H.323 video endpoints here and we always use GKs...



Jonathan

On 6/4/07, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I might be making this out to be more complicated than it needs to be.  If I
> want the CCM to manage the bandwidth via Location-based CAC can't I just
> setup my H.323 VC devices as H.323 clients on the CCM and point them at the
> CCM?  Do I really need a gatekeeper if I have a working Location-based CAC
> single cluster setup already?
>
> -C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Charles [mailto:jonvoip at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:32 PM
> To: c3voip
> Cc: ciscovoip
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Gatekeeper architecture question
>
> They should match...
>
> (Basically the Locations-based CAC was based on the GK concept of zones...)
>
> So, if you say, 'hey, Atlanta should be able to support 10 G.729
> calls' and you set the Location to 240k, your Atlanta Zone should
> match...
>
> However, you prob shouldn't even use locations-based bandwidth because
> you are now using the BRQ message from the GK for CAC (CCM sends a BRQ
> request to the GK requesting more bandwidth for a new call, GK says
> 'hell no!' call fails...)
>
> BIG THING TO KEEP IN MIND: By default, CCM doesn't give a crap about
> the BRQ denial... it just sends it as a courtesy... if you want AAR to
> kick in on a BRQ deny, you need to enable the BRQ service parameter
> for CCM.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On 6/4/07, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > How do the Gatekeeper zones interact with the Locations that are setup in
> > the CCM? Or do they?
> >
> > I am trying to add 7985's and I want either the CCM's or the gatekeeper to
> > know about all video calls from the VC units and the 7985's across the WAN
> > links.
> >
> > -C
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Charles [mailto:jonvoip at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:33 PM
> > To: c3voip
> > Cc: ciscovoip
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Gatekeeper architecture question
> >
> > No.
> >
> > You need one gatekeeper... however, if it is down, so is video
> > communications...
> >
> > (there are other solutions for this... but one should be sufficient
> > with just five sites... I have one GK for 12 sites, but the remotes
> > just talk to the main site, so if the main is down, no one cares)...
> >
> > Basically, you need to scale this up to your redundancy needs (aka,
> > how many gatekeepers do you need to be able to sleep at night?).
> >
> > Anyway.
> >
> > Here's what you do. Drop a GK at the main site, have all of the video
> > devices register to it. Define the CAC and bandwidth on it (using zone
> > bandwidths) and you will be fine...
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On 6/4/07, c3voip <c3voip at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have 5 regional sites that are connected back to my main site via
> > > point-to-point serial connections.  I want to connect H.323 Video
> > Conference
> > > devices at each site to my CCMs back at my main site.  Do I need six
> > > gatekeepers (one at each regional site and one at my main site) to
> > > successfully perform CAC/bandwidth mgmt. for the VC devices to call from
> > > site to site?  Or can I use domains and just get away with using one
> > > gatekeeper at my main site?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -C
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>