[cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

I hear ya about the SG3 support. These are strictly analog lines for phones, not faxes, so I'm not too worried. However, from what I recall from discussions on this list is that the VG224s have updated DSPs and that it's in the IOS that gives the SG3 support. Definitely something to think about for a FAX deployment. 

Not quite sure the 3945 bundle is a replacement for a VG224 though. It's 112 ports vs 24. However, if they come out with a 2901 bundle with 16 ports, then yes, I would think the VG224 days are numbered. With the new vic3-4fxs ports, this is a possibility. ;) 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil) 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com> 
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca> 
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:04:03 AM 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9 

Are there any other features eg. Super G3 Fax that the 39xx supports that the VG's don't. 


ISR2's are NOT going anywhere any time soon. I would be interested to know if Cisco came out with this package, how long it will be before the VG's get EoS/EoL as that seems to be Cisco's way. Bring out a replacement, then EoX the old stuff. Might be worth talking to the AM/SE about cisco's plans. I would hate to put out a bunch of $$$ and then have it EoX a month later....... Been there, Done that. 


Just my 2 cents. (and we all know how much that's worth in today's economy ;-) 


Scott 


On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio at uoguelph.ca > wrote: 




So I'm looking at migrating a large number of analog lines to our Cisco solution. Right now, the most economical approach is a stack of VG224s, however, Cisco has a (new) bundle, the C3945-112FXS/K9. The per port cost is still quite a bit more (almost double) so I'm finding it difficult to justify even to myself, let alone mgmt. SmartNet costs are about equal, with the 3945 bundle just a bit cheaper. 

I understand that I would be managing 4.5 VG224s to every 3945 bundle, but really, once these things go in, they're really just left alone. 

Some other things I've been thinking: 


    • Pro: 3945 has a slightly denser port count per RU (112/4RU vs 96/4RU) 
    • Pro: 3945 would use less uplink ports (2 per 112 vs 8 per 96) 
    • Con: H/W issues would bring down 112 ports 
    • Con: shelving a spare would be much more expensive 
    • Con: configuration would be a bit more complex, different port types 
    • Con: not known if SRST registration would behave the same way to a core 3945 

What do others think? What would you do? 

Lelio 



--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil) 



_______________________________________________ 
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/20110120/96b3738e/attachment.html>