[cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9
Dennis Heim
Dennis.Heim at cdw.com
Sun Jul 24 22:43:59 EDT 2011
The 3945 method is a complete joke in my mind. With VG224's your ports are 2/0-23. I can't even imagine how those ports are numbered with all those different interface and sub-interface cards, let alone some are RJ-21x while others are RJ-11.
Dennis Heim
Network Voice Engineer
CDW Advanced Technology Services
10610 9th Place
Bellevue, WA 98004
317.569.4255 Single Number Reach
317.569.4201 Fax
dennis.heim at cdw.com<mailto:dennis.heim at cdw.com>
cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
From: matthn at gmail.com [mailto:matthn at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nick Matthews
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: Steve Gustafson; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net; Jason Aarons (US); Dennis Heim; Scott Voll
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:317.569.4255> Single Number Reach
317.569.4201<tel:317.569.4201> Fax
dennis.heim at cdw.com<mailto:dennis.heim at cdw.com>
cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:19 AM
To: Dennis Heim
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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<mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>>
To: "Nick Matthews" <matthnick at gmail.com<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>>, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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. :).
Dennis Heim
Network Voice Engineer
CDW Advanced Technology Services
11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
Carmel, IN 46032
317.569.4255<tel:317.569.4255> Single Number Reach
317.569.4201<tel:317.569.4201> Fax
dennis.heim at cdw.com<mailto:dennis.heim at cdw.com>
cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:svoll.voip at gmail.com>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________
<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. <http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
<http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
<http://dimensiondata.stream57.com/04141pm/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20110725/cf7fd041/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-voip
mailing list