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

[Matthew Saskin]

Where in the SRND is the call limit for various gateways listed?  I'd like
to take a look.

The environment I was referring to was a UCCE build performed by Cisco AS.
4 gateways w/ 10-12 PRI's each handling upwards of 50K calls/day inbound and
outbound - all calls were transcoded on these gateways after the IVR and
before heading to agents.  During busy hour call volumes weren't above 250
calls/gateway but I'd like to see the reference.

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 4:53 PM, Rhodium <rhodium_uk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20100210/94373c52/attachment.html>