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

[Nick Matthews]

The 3945 gets you slightly higher FXS/RU density as well as simplified
management - ~4:1 management points.  It's also more expensive.  If you can
put value behind either density or management it's worth a look.  The 3945
will also have 3945's with PVDM3's.  For this application it's basically the
same as the PVDM2's, but you could enable some of the 3 features like video
switching.

-nick

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure it's 4 x EVM-HD-8FXS/DID with each populated with 2 x
> EM3-HDA-8FXS/DID so 4 x 24 ports = 96 ports. The EVM-HD nodule uses an RJ21
> connector. BlackBox sells a neat patch panel for this, but if you're only
> doing FXS it's not necessary. The remaining 16 ports are obtained by
> installing 4 x 4 FXS VWIC modules which have RJ11.
>
> Honestly, I'd go for a stack of VG224s. With the multipack discount it's a
> hard sell. Yes, you need additional uplinks, but it just seems better. It's
> also cheaper.
>
> HTH
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Steve Gustafson <smgustafson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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>
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>
>> 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>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>dennis.heim at cdw.com
>>  <http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
>> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto: <lelio at uoguelph.ca>lelio at uoguelph.ca]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:19 AM
>> *To:* Dennis Heim
>> *Cc:* <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>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>Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>
>> *To: *"Nick Matthews" < <matthnick at gmail.com>matthnick at gmail.com>, "Lelio
>> Fulgenzi" < <lelio at uoguelph.ca>lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> *Cc: * <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>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>dennis.heim at cdw.com
>>  <http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
>> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>
>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>
>> 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>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>
>> 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>svoll.voip at gmail.com>
>> *To: *"Lelio Fulgenzi" < <lelio at uoguelph.ca>lelio at uoguelph.ca>
>> *Cc: * <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>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>
>> 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>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>  <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>  <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>
>> 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>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>  <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20110723/6b72fa6c/attachment.html>