[cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol

[Nick Matthews]

You can get an over-the-top SIP provider, but if you get voice quality
problems you'll have some trouble getting your ISP and SIP provider to
play nicely.  Once it leaves your gateway you can't prove who may be
causing the problem if there is jitter or packet loss.  Your ISP
probably won't have any idea how to deal with it, because for
traditional data these types of packet problems do not have much
consequence.

If you're cool with that, there are hundreds of providers of varying quality.

The suggestion is still to go with the data line from the SIP
provider.  You may be able to save some money on equipment
consolidation or pricing depending on your volume / area as well.
It's not the best scenario for every case, but there are certainly
cases where it makes since and these cases are growing.


-nick

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Tim Smith <thsglobal at gmail.com> wrote:
> We dont have too many SIP providers here in Oz at the moment anyway.
> We were talking about just using SIP between CCM and the Gateway. Vs MGCP
> and H323.
>
> Fax / modem could definitely be a good point though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>
>> From our initial conversations with our PSTN providers, SIP was a few
>> years away with feature parity with H323/MGCP/PRI trunks.
>>
>> FAX support was definately out of the question, and there were crazy
>> requirements about not being able to do voice only on the ethernet trunk. We
>> had to buy a data package that was no more than 50% voice traffic. For us,
>> we get our internet through our regional network at dirt cheap prices
>> because we basically run a co-op. For others it might make sense to move to
>> the same PSTN/SIP/Internet carrier, but for us it didn't. Even our backup
>> internet link is cheaper than the PSTN provider could price I believe.
>>
>> The other thing was route diversity and multiple demarcs. I think those
>> were quite expensive where as now, we get it at no extra cost.
>>
>> I've long been a proponent of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even when
>> we went to tender and ended up switching our PRIs to another local carrier,
>> it was a LOT of work. I understood it saved us quite a bit of money, so it
>> was worth it in the end for a three year contract. That being said, don't
>> expect that SIP will be cheaper than PRIs and/or without it's own problems.
>>
>> Caveat Emptor as my friend Caesar said.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Tim Smith
>> To: STEVEN CASPER
>> Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol
>> Also, SIP is slightly easier to troubleshoot than H323, much more so than
>> MGCP. (And I also dont like MGCP anyway :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Tim Smith <thsglobal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the idea.
>>>
>>> More and more SIP trunks will be turning up. Why bother having to go from
>>> H323 to SIP. Simpler just to run SIP.
>>>
>>> I also like SIP and how you can set it up to monitor the destination of
>>> your dial-peers. Shut them down if a CCM is down.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER at mtb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I assume you are talking traditional analog and digital PSTN
>>>> gateways, why are you considering migrating to SIP to control these as
>>>> opposed to H323? .
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> >>> Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> 11/3/2009 6:09 PM >>>
>>>> Has anyone started using SIP on the PSTN gateway? I want to use it
>>>> instead of H.323 or MGCP and start migrating it to SIP on the gateway. Any
>>>> experience with this? Can I get Calling Name and Number from the PSTN side?
>>>>
>>>> ************************************
>>>> 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.
>>>> ************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>