[cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol

Wed Nov 4 11:31:22 EST 2009

Huh. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was just a  gateway option.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:

> You define the SIP gateway in CUCM as a SIP trunk.  That's what he is
> referring to.
>
>  -Ryan
>
>  On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Voice Noob wrote:
>
> Thanks for your response. You mentioned SIP trunks in your respoonse. Just
> to verify again I am NOT talking about a SIP trunk. I am talking at a SIP
> gateway.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think there are a few different factors - but it's the protocol I
>> would use if I was administering my network.
>>
>> We see a lot of SIP gateways, and it's definitely being deployed.
>>
>> Some of the advantages:
>> -Easy to troubleshoot.  You can read up on SIP and learn the basics
>> 2-3x faster than other protocols.  It's clear and concise for the most
>> part.
>> -Interop.  Most of the new devices coming out are all running SIP.
>> You'll have less pain with SIP-SIP than SIP-H323 or SIP-MGCP, plus
>> experience with it already.
>> -Easier transition to SIP as your PSTN connection (last post) if/when
>> you decide to make that jump.
>> -If you're already running H323, switching over is pretty easy.
>>
>> Other considerations:
>> -H323 is still the best at video, and for a while, there doesn't
>> appear to be any real alternatives.
>> -MGCP is still the only 'centralized dial plan' protocol where you
>> don't have to do anything on your gateways at all.  If you're not good
>> with IOS and just 'want it to work', this is still the protocol to
>> look at.  It comes with it's own troubles, bugs, and instability
>> because of it.
>> -Some older devices don't support SIP yet, and you may still be
>> running H323 in the network anyways.
>> -For more advanced call flows and designs, you may run into some
>> unsupported features.  (Like using ANN for ringback, I think that is
>> still H323 only).
>> -I would recommend CUCM 6.x+ and 12.4(20)T and later for SIP trunks.
>> If you have older platforms like the 3700, CMM, that won't run 20.T, I
>> would stick to your existing protocol.  Likewise for CUCM versions
>> prior to 6.x.  The SIP stacks in the versions prior just aren't as
>> stable or have as many features.
>>
>>
>> -nick
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:37 AM, VoiceNoob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Nick that is what I am  asking. I in no way want to go with a SIP trunk
>> to
>> > the PSTN I just want to use SIP as my gateway protocol. So the Telco
>> still
>> > hands me a PRI / FXO lines and instead of using MGCP or H.323 I would
>> use
>> > SIP. As far as why drop H.323 I don’t have a reason to but when doing
>> new
>> > customer deployments I don’t want to put one thing in and then migrate
>> to
>> > something else two years down the road.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So I ask my question again has anyone used SIP as their GW protocol
>> instead
>> > of H.323? Any problems or things I should look for? Should I just not do
>> it
>> > yet.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Smith
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:07 PM
>> > To: Nick Matthews
>> > Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
>> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Nick,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What about using SIP just as protocol to replace H323 / MGCP between CCM
>> and
>> > your Voice Gateway?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20091104/5351c8e8/attachment.html>