[cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

Sun Aug 5 13:13:32 EDT 2012

I'm not a big fan of it. If the customer is capable of managing a SIP
environment themselves, I wouldn't recommend having the adtran in there.
If they're looking to save a few dollars easily, it's not a terrible
solution.  And I suppose if they didn't have any routers that could run
CUBE (28xx/38xx/8xx/29xx/39xx) then it would look like a large upfront
cost.  If you've already got a PRI router I would just use that. My guess
is the savings would be larger to simply put CUBE licensing on an existing
router than it would be to have the adtran's in there absorbing some of the
savings.

As well, it reduces the call capacity on the link - 23 B channels vs ~60
g.729 calls on the same T1. If you want to do geographical redundancy -
probably not the same amount of options.  If you want high availability
(HSRP/VRRP) - also not going to fly with the adtran setup.

Does it work for some really simple installations or customers - sure.  Is
it best practice - I would say no.  Are there times it should be used -
probably.

-nick

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Erick B. <erickbee at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen this done for awhile now on clients who have done PRI
> cutover's to other provider for cost savings. Sad thing is (kind of)
> is sometimes customers don't know new provider is bringing in SIP and
> handing off them as PRI sometimes. I've seen the adtran used for this
> more widely but have also seen new provider bring a cisco router in
> and do back-to-back PRI handoff to the customers cisco gateway. On one
> I was involved with they used cisco gateway and new provider wouldn't
> supply T1 crossover for the PRI connection to their cisco gateway so
> we had to get them the cables.
>
> I don't like this practice myself personally, but it does save client
> money usually.
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Matt Slaga (AM)
> <matt.slaga at dimensiondata.com> wrote:
> > Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most
> larger
> > providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the
> location
> > to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
> > To: Nate VanMaren
> >
> >
> > Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer
> they
> > are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more
> importantly
> > is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so
> > inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the
> > motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with
> faxing or
> > modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so
> > that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series
> > routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset
> > upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if
> the
> > provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential
> > implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> But cost being equal, I’d much rather have a traditional PRI that a
> >> SIP/PRI.  Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the
> problems
> >> that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund
> >> the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider?  How old are
> these
> >> existing PRI gateways that they can’t just be converted to CUBEs?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> -Nate
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> >> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> >
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
> >
> >> To: Justin Steinberg
> >
> >> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
> >> multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to
> >> CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy
> >> should still be available although they might need to get creative on
> >> outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for
> the
> >> sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off
> and
> >> chew out his account team.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I don't see any problem with this either.  In fact, with this solution
> >> there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
> >> relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh at markholloway.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
> >> handoffs.  When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer
> who
> >> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who
> needed 4
> >> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
> >> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
> >> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
> >> gracefully manageable.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > I received a call from a former client (I switched partners) that is
> >> > migrating sites over from PRI to SIP and has an arrangement with his
> >> > provider that they will provide PRI handoffs via Adtran gateways so
> that he
> >> > does not need to purchase additional hardware or licencing.
> Apparently, His
> >> > Cisco account team caught wind of this and told him this was against
> "Cisco
> >> > Best Practice", that he will experience nothing but problems and
> needs to
> >> > have CUBE in place and take SIP directly to CUBE, then proceeded to
> quote
> >> > him $50k in upgraded routers and licensing.... This is where I got
> called
> >> > and figured before I start up the bus and start tossing people under
> it I
> >> > would ask you folks to see if there was anything I might be missing
> here?
> >> > Using the PRI handofffs sound reasonable to me since there does not
> seem to
> >> > be any compelling reason I can think of to go to CUBE in his
> situation.
> >
> >> > I've seen many clients running SIP trunks with PRI handoffs for the
> same
> >> > reasons and to my knowledge have had zero problems.... It sounds to
> me like
> >> > it's Cisco's Year End and someone is embellishing the truth to sell
> >> > unnecessary gear.... Anyone else know of any issues of terminating
> the SIP
> >> > trunk on an Adtran and providing a PRI handoff, assuming you don't
> need more
> >> > than the 23 channels....?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >> > 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
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any
> >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you
> >> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> email and
> >> destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > itevomcid
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120805/904c5b5a/attachment.html>