[cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9
Steve Gustafson
smgustafson at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 19:07:27 EDT 2011
Anyone know what the actual physical interface looks like on the FXS112? I
see that it is "RJ-21 and RJ-11", but I don't know how many of each, and if
there is 25 FXS per RJ21 or 24...I'm assuming 24.
Category 112-FXS Bundle VG 224 VG 204/VG 202
Physical Connector RJ-21 and RJ-11 RJ-21 RJ-11
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Jason Aarons (US) <
jason.aarons at us.didata.com> wrote:
> I agree if there were Amphenol cables on the 3945 that could lead back to
> patch panel..****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Heim
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:51 AM
>
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9****
>
> ** **
>
> Combined with all that cabling over to the 3945. With a VG224 I just give
> the analog or wiring cable a cut list and he can just start punching down to
> the 66-block.****
>
> ** **
>
> Dennis Heim
> Network Voice Engineer
> CDW Advanced Technology Services
> 11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
> Carmel, IN 46032
>
> 317.569.4255 Single Number Reach
> 317.569.4201 Fax****
>
> dennis.heim at cdw.com
> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:19 AM
> *To:* Dennis Heim
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net; Nick Matthews
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9****
>
> ** **
>
> yeah, i can imagine it would be difficult, even with the gui. didn't even
> think of that.
>
> ---
> 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)****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Dennis Heim" <Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>
> *To: *"Nick Matthews" <matthnick at gmail.com>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <
> lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> *Cc: *cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:09:23 PM
> *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9
>
> ****
>
> I can only imagine how the 3945 bundle will be to configure, with all the
> goofy port numbers between main board and nm modules… thanks, but no thanks
> cisco. I’ll take the vg224. J.****
>
> ****
>
> Dennis Heim
> Network Voice Engineer
> CDW Advanced Technology Services
> 11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
> Carmel, IN 46032
>
> 317.569.4255 Single Number Reach
> 317.569.4201 Fax****
>
> 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 *Nick Matthews
> *Sent:* Friday, January 21, 2011 10:54 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9****
>
> ****
>
> I don't know of any plans to sunset the VG224. The only difference between
> the VG224 and a ISR G2 is the PVDM3 DSPs. A 3845 and VG224 are functionally
> equivalent.
>
> Differences between the PVDM2 and PVDM3's - video support. You'll see
> these be video transcoders/MCU type resources some time in the future.
> Possibly some enhanced codec support - namely the dreaded G.729-G.729
> capability, and maybe some new codes. Price - they are cheaper as you scale
> towards some of the higher densities (PVDM3-256 and 128).
>
> Feature wise today, between the VG224 and 3945, I would say is almost
> nothing. At least in terms of using it as a high density analog solution.
>
> -nick****
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> wrote:****
>
> 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)****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *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****
>
> ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [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/20110722/d2ede14e/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list