[cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187

[Matthew Ballard]

The VG202 runs IOS, which means it can do pretty much anything any other IOS based voice gateway can do (taking into account that it only has the two voice ports).

The ATA 187 is more of a client device.  I know the 186 was much more limited it's fax support (for example it didn't do standards based T.38).  I don't know how the 187 does in comparison, but I found the 186 to be very unreliable in terms of doing faxes.

Basically the VG202 gives you more power and control over configuration, and is more capable, but the ATA 187 is easier to setup, but (at least to me) an unknown level of handling of fax.

Matthew Ballard
Network Manager
Otis College of Art and Design
mballard at otis.edu

From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Angel Castaneda
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:34 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187

Good morning all,

We're looking at moving our fax machines to CUCM 9.1, but we do not have the need for a VG224, as it's only a few devices.

Other than the extra Ethernet port on a VG202, is there another reason I should be choosing that over an ATA187? Price-wise, the ATA187 is more attractive to us.

Thank you in advance,

Angel Castaneda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130419/c24c523e/attachment.html>