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

[Nick Matthews]

>From Cisco's perspective it doesn't cost too much to enable the
bundle.  I'm sure there is some customer out there that absolutely
requires either higher density or lower management.  My guess is more
towards the density side of things.  What is interesting is that every
new SKU does require resources as from what I can tell it requires
different logistics for replacement.  Cisco still does not have a very
compelling analog story, and this is the crux of it.  If the users can
be trained to use the advanced features it's a different story, but
for onhook-offhook analog it's tough.

-nick

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Dennis Heim <Dennis.Heim at cdw.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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> 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> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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.
> S