[cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?

Wed Feb 9 15:05:04 EST 2011

Lately about 50% of my customers age going with SIP trunks to carriers.
The latest one I just finished up had 2 geographically separated SIP trunks
terminating on 2 separate CUBE's with failover both from the CUCM side and
the carrier side.
This one customer had about 18 offices spread throughout the US. We took
care of disaster scenarios using local analog trunks at each site for SRST
purposes only.
The carrier could handle E911 using the SIP trunks and not needing to use
the local GW's for this.
Previous to this customer we also implemented another one that had about 110
sites, same scenario as above.

I have one customer that has several dozen PRI's and a handful of DS3's
terminating on MUX's. They are looking to combine all those circuits and
going the SIP route.
For all of the above customers the amount of equipment needed plus the
annual cost of having so many different carriers servicing so many different
circuits will be reduced significantly.
They especially liked that just one carrier would be responsible for not
only the billing for calls but also for their circuits.

My prediction is that SIP will eventually take over using local PRI's at the
GW level where possible.

Joel P

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jason Aarons (US) <
jason.aarons at us.didata.com> wrote:

> I still see a lot of PRI(s) on 3945 with SIP/vxml  to CVP 8x (versus H323)
> and UCCE.  But the amount of SIP work is growing every month….if you don’t
> know it I would start learning it with some small stuff first. I’ve seen
> some very large branch projects with centralized Verizon SIP trunks/Acme SBC
> which mirrored what Nick stated earlier…
>
>
>
> I recall in 1985 my team at Sprint griped about having to go to BGP for the
> Internet backbone from OSPF…….next will be IPv6 grumbling and more SIP….I
> bet in 10 years SIP will be 95% of new trunks sold.
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Bob Zanett (US)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:55 AM
> *To:* Paul; Matthew Loraditch; David Eco; matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com;
> notariannil1 at scranton.edu
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> It is not.  SME seems to only fit into a specific silo of very large
> customers.   I do see CUSP and CUBE being deployed, especially in the
> contact center area and many of our large customers – we are talking very
> large BHCA customers are migrating or have migrated to SIP internally
> already.   I am working with a large service provider that we will be
> migrating from H323 centric to SIP centric towards the end of this year for
> their contact center.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul [mailto:asobihoudai at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:09 PM
> *To:* Bob Zanett (US); Matthew Loraditch; David Eco;
> matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com; notariannil1 at scranton.edu
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
>
>
>
> Are you using CCM session management edition for that customer or is it
> just one cluster with a lot of centralized SIP trunks? I'm just asking out
> of curiosity since I've never heard of anyone using session management
> edition....yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Bob Zanett (US) <bob.zanett at us.didata.com>
> *To:* Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>; David Eco <
> david.eco at msn.com>; "matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com" <
> matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com>; "notariannil1 at scranton.edu" <
> notariannil1 at scranton.edu>
> *Cc:* "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> *Sent:* Tue, February 8, 2011 1:08:13 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
>
> I have helped to design, architect and deploy multiple customers with SIP,
> including SIP trunks carrying contact center calls and also business user
> calls.  I helped to build out the initial infrastructure of a global medical
> device firm that almost has all of their US remote offices – literally 100s
> – migrated onto their centralized SIP trunks.
>
>
>
> Are there interoperability issues?  Yes, as each vendor can speak a
> slightly different dialect.  However, with the onset of some very nice
> Border Gateways – it is making this a non-issue.  However, as Matthew states
> below – you need to work with someone who knows what they are doing.
>
>
>
> For instance, ROI can be a grey area.  Many times, it is simply a wash and
> at other times can save a tremendous amount.  Like the example above, each
> of the remote sites had a least a PRI.  However, many of the offices hardly
> used 12 b-channels.   By centralizing, they are seeing a very nice savings
> and they get:
>
> ·         Centralized dial plan management
>
> ·         Centralized DID control and management
>
> ·         On-the-fly call volume adjustment – it is now bandwidth not
> copper in the ground
>
> ·         Economy of scale
>
>
>
>
> http://www.callcentertimes.com/LatestNews/tabid/59/ctl/NewsArticle/mid/407/CategoryID/1/NewsID/173/Default.aspx
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Solutions Architect
>
> Customer Interactive Solutions
>
> Dimension Data
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [
> mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> Loraditch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:29 PM
> *To:* David Eco; matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com; notariannil1 at scranton.edu
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
>
>
>
> The thing I would say is it all depends on your level of comfort with the
> Carrier and with SIP. I generally don’t have a problem with the quality of
> the service when it works, the problem has been troubleshooting and making
> it work in the first place. I understand how to debug and troubleshoot a T-1
> or PRI and can set one up H.323 or MGCP no problem. SIP just doesn’t process
> for me, Everybody says it’s simple, plain text and all that but I don’t get
> it.
>
>
>
> My point, If you are going with it make sure you or someone you have
> understands it.
>
>
>
> If you have a smaller install one thing you can do is have the provider put
> in an IAD and hand off as PRI. Make them responsible and make your side
> something you understand. Obviously in a large campus environment that may
> not be feasible and defeats some of the consolidation benefits but in a
> smaller setup it can make life much easier.
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch, CCVP, CCNA, CCDA*
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
>
> Timonium, MD 21093
> support at heliontechnologies.com
> (p) (410) 252-8830
> (F) (443) 541-1593
>
> Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com
> Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com for fast assistance!
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [
> mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *David Eco
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:47 PM
> *To:* matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com; notariannil1 at scranton.edu
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
>
>
>
> with SIP, you may get more capacity of the channel. But in our case,
> we have to setup IPSEC VPN with Verizon to utilize their SIP Trunk. Network
> has to be reliable.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> > From: matthew at ciscovoiceguru.com
> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:43:34 -0600
> > To: notariannil1 at scranton.edu
> > CC: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Verizon SIP vs. PRI?
> >
> > One of my biggest questions right now regarding SIP trunks has been data
> circuit issues and usability in SRST mode. If your branch office loses it's
> network connection, will your SIP trunk go down too? If so, then you're up
> the creek without a paddle.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Lisa Notarianni <notariannil1 at scranton.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We currently utilize PRI trunks as fail over and backup. They connect
> to our 6509's.
> > >
> > > Can anyone share their thoughts on SIP vs. PRI services.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Lisa
> > > --
> > > <LNsignature.jpg>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> ------------------------------
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*<http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
>
> *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. *
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: DDIPT] <http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
>
> *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. *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: DDIPT] <http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
>
> * 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. *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110209/07f7e835/attachment.html>