[cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010. Why?

Tue Oct 19 16:16:11 EDT 2010

I'm just talking about how adaptive codecs can be a bad thing in an
enterprise LAN environment.  Things like Skype and MOC can take advantage of
extra internet bandwidth with adaptive codecs, but when they go over a
shared WAN pipe it's potentially very bad.  Maybe they can change the codec
on the client for when they're on the LAN, I'm not sure.  It's more of a
statement about adaptive codecs than it is about any one client.

-nick

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Matt Slaga (US)
<Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com>wrote:

> How does this differ than using IP Communicator through a PhoneProxy?
>
>
>
> *From:* matthn at gmail.com [mailto:matthn at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
> Matthews
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:59 PM
> *To:* Dennis Heim
> *Cc:* Jason Aarons (US); Matt Slaga (US); Eric Butcher; Andrew Dorsett;
> cisco voip
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> The other big thing is that you're generally using Skype and MOC on the
> internet rather than in a corporate environment.  There's a different
> requirement when you've got a fixed T1 for bandwidth rather than fighting
> against other traffic through a cable modem or something.  By that I mean
> this - if your client is losing packets, you can increase your voice
> bandwidth to include reliability and generally succeed in increasing the
> quality.  If you've got a fixed bandwidth and you're sharing it with other
> clients whose fail-safe is to increase bandwidth, it's only going to make
> things worse.
>
> -nick
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Dennis Heim <Dennis.Heim at cdw.com> wrote:
>
> The thing to remember is when something doesn’t work on skype everyone goes
> oh well it’s pretty much free, versus on enterprise voice, people want it
> fixed and resolved.
>
>
>
> Dennis Heim
> Network Voice Engineer
> CDW  Advanced Technology Services
> 11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
> Carmel, IN  46032
>
> 317.569.4255 Office/Home Office
> 317.569.4201 Fax
> 317.694.6070 Cell
>
> dennis.heim at cdw.com
> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jason Aarons (US) [mailto:jason.aarons at us.didata.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:02 AM
> *To:* Dennis Heim; Matt Slaga (US); Eric Butcher; Nick Matthews; Andrew
> Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> Amazing how Skype and Office Communicator generally work so well, that
> adaptive codec magic is pretty good. I’ve never thought of Skype as clunky,
> but it is getting a little bloated J
>
>
>
> You can use Windows 2008 Group Policies for QoS in enterprise (IP
> Communicator as well), the interface makes it easy.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Heim
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:38 AM
> *To:* Matt Slaga (US); Eric Butcher; Nick Matthews; Andrew Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> Still seems clunky to me. If it still relies on the adaptive codec then it
> really isn’t CAC. If I am reading what is stated, each subnet has the same
> treatment?
>
>
>
> Dennis Heim
> Network Voice Engineer
> CDW  Advanced Technology Services
> 11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
> Carmel, IN  46032
>
> 317.569.4255 Office/Home Office
> 317.569.4201 Fax
> 317.694.6070 Cell
>
> dennis.heim at cdw.com
> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Matt Slaga (US)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:34 AM
> *To:* Eric Butcher; Nick Matthews; Andrew Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> No, it is not based on RSVP.  It is very similar to the way Cisco does it,
> but instead of regions/locations, they do it by subnet and still rely on the
> MS adaptive audio codec to adjust bandwidth as necessary.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Butcher [mailto:Eric.Butcher at cdw.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:32 AM
> *To:* Matt Slaga (US); Nick Matthews; Andrew Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> Just curious… is their CAC based on RSVP?
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *Eric Butcher*
>
> *Cisco Unified Communications Engineer**
> **CDW* Professional Services
>
> 11711 N Meridian, Ste 225
>
> Carmel, IN  46032
> ( 317.569.4282 - IP Phone
> ( 765.744.1458 - Mobile
> * eric.butcher at cdw.com
>
> http://www.cdw.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Matt Slaga (US)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:23 AM
> *To:* Nick Matthews; Andrew Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> No server needed now for Exchange 2010 MWI.
>
>
>
> Microsoft also partners with Polycom, Snom and several other vendors for
> hard physical phones, so you are not locked into just software driven audio.
>
>
>
> Microsoft also before didn’t tout QoS and CAC, in my opinion mostly because
> they didn’t have a solution.  Now that they have CAC, they strongly suggest
> your solution have it.  You can also perform full QoS in your environment
> with Microsoft, however you are going to have to trust the endpoints to have
> their DSCP set correctly.  In most enterprise environments, this is really a
> non-issue as they can be set at an administrative level through group
> policies.
>
>
>
> I’m not touting one vendor over another, they both can solve specific
> issues based on your specific needs.  What it sounds like what you need to
> do is perform a review of what your exact requirements are based on business
> objectives and future needs and compare that to which vendor can meet most
> of your objectives.  I doubt you will find any single vendor that will
> answer all your objectives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Nick Matthews
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:08 AM
> *To:* Andrew Dorsett
> *Cc:* cisco voip
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CISCO UC 8.X solution over MS OCS/Lync 2010.
> Why?
>
>
>
> As well, look into the hardware requirements in the case of a wan failure
> at a branch site.  From what I understand it requires a server at each site,
> where in the Cisco design it's a single router.
>
> From what I remember, their presence isn't standards based and may have to
> pay for another server to interoperate.  As mentioned, how comfortable are
> you with a third party requirement for support of a contact center?  I think
> they needed another server even for MWI, not sure if that's been fixed.
> E911, probably another server.
>
> Microsoft also believes you don't need QoS because of their adaptive
> codec.  As someone who used to troubleshoot voice quality problems on a
> daily basis, I whole heartedly disagree.  I'm also not fond of requiring
> stability in my operating system to have a stable voice platform.
>
> -nick
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Andrew Dorsett <vtadorsett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You didn't specify if you were a multi-site operation or not.  But have you
> considered QoS, CAC, and perhaps RSVP when integrating with existing room
> based VTC?  Do you have a requirement for VTC?  I would ask Microsoft about
> their support for multiple codecs and how they handle integrating to a
> traditional TDM provider.  What about e911?  How do you handle a situation
> where an entire office is Lync clients and the power goes out, what about
> 911 functionality?  Or how about the cleaning crew at night...What if one of
> them has a heart attack, where's the physical phone to dial 911 since they
> don't have a laptop/desktop?  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for soft-clients
> in the right environment, but there are still requirements for hard-phones
> that are often overlooked until someone is running around looking for the
> medics...
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:12 AM, JA Colmenares <sforcejr at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If you were asked why choosing CUC 8.X over OCS/Lync 2010 when the costs of
> setup and licensing for the MIcrosoft solution are much cheaper?. Please
> take my word about being cheaper due to particular circumstances in our
> company.
>
>
>
> What would your reply be? , I need help justifying the CISCO option. I read
> this document:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns151/C11-604516-00_Evaluating_UC_Solutions_WP.pdf<https://webmail.duckcreektech.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=7d9a2103295c47799dacf3a191228bc1&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cisco.com%2fen%2fUS%2fsolutions%2fcollateral%2fns151%2fC11-604516-00_Evaluating_UC_Solutions_WP.pdf>
>
>
>
> I need a more objective and unbiased resource. If you believe you can still
> take a "jab" on the cost aspect, elaborate on it. But I am looking more on
> the benefits and robustness of the solution. A Hybrid solution is not an
> option. Either all CISCO or all Microsoft.
>
>
>
> Not even CISCO partners in my area have been able to provide solid answers
> to this question.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and
> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting
> it from your computer. Thank you. *
> ------------------------------
>
> *Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and
> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting
> it from your computer. Thank you. *
> ------------------------------
>
> *Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and
> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting
> it from your computer. Thank you. *
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> * Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and
> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting
> it from your computer. Thank you. *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20101019/e654209b/attachment.html>