[cisco-voip] VG224 issue

Jonathan Charles jonvoip at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 00:08:47 EDT 2009


You can configure a VG224 as SCCP or MGCP from the drop down menu, or
as an H.323 Gateway, or you can create a SIP trunk to it and use
SIP... no biggie... tho  I have never done SIP, it shouldn't be a big
deal (basically just like H.323, but put the SIP cmds on it...).


Jonathan

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Unless I'm reading this documentation incorrectly, it looks like it supports
> all four. Now, I've read Cisco documentation before that was a little
> misleading, but I figure it sounded about right.
>
> ________________________________
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6790/gatecont/ps2250/ps5516/product_data_sheet09186a00801d87f6.html
>
> Protocols Supported
>
> • SCCP
>
> • H.323v4
>
> • MGCP
>
> • SIP
>
> • Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
>
> • Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
>
> • Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)
>
> • HTTP server
>
> • SNMP
>
> • Telnet
>
> • Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
>
> • Domain Name System (DNS)
>
> • VG224
>
> –  Cisco Unified Communications Manager 3.3.3 SR2 and higher versions
>
> –  Cisco Unified Communications Manager Express 4.3.2 and higher versions
>
> • VG204 and VG202
>
> –  Cisco Unified Communications Manager 6.1.3 and 7.0.1, and higher versions
>
> –  Cisco Unified Communications Manager Express 7.0.1 and higher versions
>
> • Cisco Unified Communications Manager or Cisco Unified Communications
> Manager Express redundancy support using Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP)
>
> • Call survivability-MGCP failover to an H.323 connection to the SRST router
>
> • Cisco fax relay, T.38 fax relay, and modem pass-through
>
> • Coder/decoder (codec) support, G.711, G.729a
>
> • RADIUS and TACACS+ for Telnet and authorization
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <asobihoudai at yahoo.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Kee" <SKee at cmsstl.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net, "STEVEN CASPER" <SCASPER at mtb.com>, "Jonathan
> Charles" <jonvoip at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:59:15 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
> You have two choices for control protocol for your VG224 and H323 and SIP
> ain't either of them.
>
> Paul
>
> ________________________________
> From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> To: Scott Kee <SKee at cmsstl.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net; Paul <asobihoudai at yahoo.com>; STEVEN CASPER
> <SCASPER at mtb.com>; Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:25:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
> Gimme an "S". Gimme a "C". Gimme a "C". Gimme a "P".
>
> whadaya got?
>
> NOT H323!
>
> Seriously, I think you will find H323 is a pain to configure with all the
> dial peers, etc. With SCCP it's configure three or four lines and your done.
> Each port needs an stcapp command or something like that, but it's over and
> done with after that.
>
> Don't get me wrong, H323 has it's benefits. Especially for direct multiple
> cluster access, but I think that's better for actual gateways, not FXS
> ports.
>
> Somewhere, there's a chart that compares H323, SCCP, MGCP, SIP so unless you
> really need H323, stick with SCCP. Try it, you'll like it.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Kee" <SKee at cmsstl.com>
> To: "Paul" <asobihoudai at yahoo.com>, "STEVEN CASPER" <SCASPER at mtb.com>,
> "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip at gmail.com>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:19:56 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
> How about H323?
> I am just having too many issues with MGCP with the fax machines.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul [mailto:asobihoudai at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:41 PM
> To: STEVEN CASPER; Jonathan Charles; Lelio Fulgenzi
> Cc: Scott Kee; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4t/12_4t2/ht1vg224.html
>
> http://cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/voice/fxs/configuration/guide/fxssccpsplmft.html
>
> These two documents should give you plenty of information on how to
> configure the FXS ports to be controlled via Skinny.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER at mtb.com>
> To: Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com>; Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: Scott Kee <SKee at cmsstl.com>; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
>
>  All of our VG224s are MGCP and we have been experiencing  a lot of fax pain
> lately ourselves. When we talked to TAC they told us that MGCP or SCCP makes
> no difference and that we should change all of our fax machines to not use
> Super G and to reduce the speed of the fax machines. In a company of our
> size this is just  not going to work.
>
> I am considering changing to SCCP to give it a try. Could someone share a
> sanitized SCCP config for a VG224 and what advantages they think there are
> to using SCCP as opposed to MGCP? Other than it works better :) I am going
> to have to give a couple of technical reasons.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
>
> Please consider the impact on our environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>>>> Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> 4/27/2009 1:27 PM >>>
>
> I third that opinion. I use SCCP and it was very easy to setup. I think SCCP
> debugs are also more helpful (I could be wrong there).
>
> That being said, we are using modem/fax passthrough and have downgraded our
> FAXes to 14.4/ECC off.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip at gmail.com>
> To: "Paul" <asobihoudai at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Scott Kee" <SKee at cmsstl.com>, cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:16:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>
> Oh, wow, it is MGCP... I didn't even see that...
>
> Yeah, ditto, go with SCCP.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Paul <asobihoudai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I'd ditch the MGCP and use Skinny for the VG224. I've had a
>> lot more luck and flexibility using Skinny. Make sure you update the IOS on
>> the VG.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Scott Kee <SKee at cmsstl.com>
>> To: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:58:18 AM
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] VG224 issue
>>
>>
>> I have VG224 with CM 6.1 and using MGCP.  I have about 18 fax machines
>> plugged into this Voice Gateway.
>> Sometime early March people started complaining that they weren't
>> receiving faxes from outside.
>> They were hearing fast busy signal when outside people send faxes to the
>> fax machines that were plugged into the VG 224.
>> I reloaded VG 224 and power recycled fax machines but it did not make any
>> difference.
>> I called Cisco TAC and worked on the issue for about 20 hours but did not
>> find any issues.
>> We RMA the router but it did not make any difference.  We ended up
>> removing the VG224 gateway from CM and recreated it.  That seemed fixed the
>> issues then.
>>
>> This afternoon, I am seeing exact same issues with VG 224.  It was working
>> fine till now.
>> I did not make any configuration changes on the VG224...
>> I am going to call Cisco tomorrow morning but I don't know Cisco is going
>> to do this time?
>> Is this CM issue or VG?
>>
>> Does anyone experience this issue?
>>
>> Any help would really appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ************************************
> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is
> intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If you are not the intended
> recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying,
> distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission.
>  If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or
> hard copy.  This communication may contain nonpublic personal information
> about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
> and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  You may not directly or indirectly reuse or
> disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services
> for which you are receiving the information.
> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission.  The
> sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or
> service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security,
> receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
> ************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>


More information about the cisco-voip mailing list