[cisco-voip] Configuring first VG224: MGCP vs. SCCP configurations

[Nicholas Schilling]

Agreed;

The way i get around this is to configure (2) VG224s in CCM one MGCP 
other SCCP with the same IP.

then i configure the first 12 or so ports on the Vg224 for SCCP and the 
last few MGCP for Faxing.

-Nicholas


On 1/7/2010 9:55 AM, Nate VanMaren wrote:
>
> I guess I am the only one that is going to disagree.
>
> I initially configured all of my gateways SCCP when that protocol was 
> available.  It has the best telephony feature set.  However, I have 
> found that those features aren’t used most of the time.
>
> The biggest use of analog in my mind is faxing.  It seems like the 
> future of faxing is T.38.  While SCCP supports Cisco proprietary NSE 
> based T.38, try and integrate that with even Cisco’s OEMed fax server.
>
> So I recommend MGCP for at least your fax ports on your VG224 so that 
> you can run protocol based T.38.
>
> -Nate
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:12 PM
> *To:* Paul
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Configuring first VG224: MGCP vs. SCCP 
> configurations
>
> I agree. If you are only using them for phones, go for SCCP. Even for 
> modems and faxes, you can use modem/fax passthrough and things work well.
>
> Check the list archives for information about how MGCP is a better 
> option for alarm systems that convey contact information.
>
> P.S. if you are deploying a few, consider the four-pack. it's cheaper
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <asobihoudai at yahoo.com>
> To: "Rob Leetun" <rleetun at bouldercounty.org>, cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 7:45:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Configuring first VG224: MGCP vs. SCCP 
> configurations
>
> SCCP is superior as a control protocol for VG224s as it not only makes 
> configuration of the ports extremely easy, it also enables a lot more 
> features that are otherwise unavailable if MGCP is used as a control 
> protocol.
>
> SCCP essentially makes the 24 FXS ports into phones you can configure 
> just like any other IP phone within CCM.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Leetun, Rob" <rleetun at bouldercounty.org>
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 3:42:45 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Configuring first VG224: MGCP vs. SCCP 
> configurations
>
>
> Currently we have many old VG248 dinosaurs in our shop.  So
> we started the configuration of our first VG224.  The question has 
> been raised
> as to use either MGCP or SCCP.  Which one is the best and why?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100107/9896d006/attachment.html>