[cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol

Wed Nov 4 17:07:32 EST 2009

Thanks Nick, that is really great info!

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:57 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
> >
> >
>

-- 

Cheers,

Tim

Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20091105/27603da9/attachment.html>