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

Sun Aug 5 13:58:13 EDT 2012

They are not being charged for the Adtrans so I really don't see the point
of spending more and getting nothing with zero compelling reason... and
that is what I told them.
On Aug 5, 2012 1:14 PM, "Nick Matthews" <matthnick at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120805/5d1428f4/attachment.html>