[cisco-voip] Transcoding/Conferencing on the same ISDN Gateway

[Rhodium]

Hi Matthew,

Appreciate the feedback. I am just concerned that as this is for a call centre, when the number of calls per second (CPS) increases, the number of simultaneous calls decreases... so I can see a deployment with 1 to 3 CPS working with the setup you have described but with something close to around 15 CPS, then according to the SRND, that is a maximum of 255 calls (for a 3845). As we are decking out the ISDN router with 210 channels, then that only leaves headroom for 45 calls not including CPU overhead of SCCP, which led to my mistaken recollection of transcoders and ISDN GWs when it was transcoders and CUBEs.

I guess based on the setup I described, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to make it "off box". Am I over riding financial judgement with caution too much?

Regards,

J


--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Transcoding/Conferencing on the same ISDN Gateway
> To: "Rhodium" <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: "Peter Slow" <peter.slow at gmail.com>, cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 9:37 PM
> I regularly see single gateways handle
> all functions (PSTN termination, conferencing, transcoding)
> for sites of all sizes.  I know of nothing [design-wise]
> preventing you from doing this.  In fact, I can think of
> some very large installations I've seen that were done
> by advanced services where 3845's were being used to
> terminate 10-12 PRI's plus handle a few hundred
> transcoding sessions.
> 
> 
> Matthew Saskin
> msaskin at gmail.com
> 203-253-9571
> 
> July 18, 2010 - 1500m swim (in the hudson), 40k bike, 10k
> run
> Please support the Leukemia & Lyphoma Society
> 
> http://pages.teamintraining.org/nyc/nyctri10/msaskin
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM,
> Rhodium <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> I dug out a report from Cisco Advanced Services that stated
> that CUBEs should only be used for SIP trunks and not for
> transcoding/mtp. Knew I read something somewhere. Just not
> the details... :)
> 
> 
> So we are all definite that for an ISDN GW, we can use
> re-use the DSPs for transcoding in line with Cisco's
> recommendations? I want to recommend getting a dedicated
> router for these functions but need to justify the cost so
> if there are no design recommendations, then I guess I can
> just put it all on one box.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> J
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 2/10/10, Peter Slow <peter.slow at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Peter Slow <peter.slow at gmail.com>
> 
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Transcoding/Conferencing on
> the same ISDN Gateway
> > To: "Rhodium" <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk>
> > Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 5:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> > That is not necessarily correct. It
> > depends heavily on the type of
> > gateway you're talking about, and the number of
> transcoding
> > or
> > conferencing sessions you might be needing.
> 
> >
> > -peter
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Rhodium <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Experts, :)
> > >
> > > I am sure I read somewhere in a design doc or the
> SRND
> 
> > that it is not advocated to put transcoding or
> conferencing
> > resources on a voice gateway handling about 150
> calls.
> > >
> > > Am I recalling right or are the old brain cells
> > getting weaker with age.
> 
> > >
> > > If that is correct, a link would be appreciated
> as I
> > can't find it.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 
> 
> 
>