[cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP

[Kenneth Hayes]

With the VG224's instead of MGCP wouldn't it be easier to do it SCCP vs
MGCP because of T.38 issues with SIP?


Sent from my iPad

On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <
jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com> wrote:

I would agree SIP where possible end to end creates the least amount of
issues.  You might have some VG224s that want Shared Lines with SIP Phones
requiring MGCP on the VG224.



*From:* cisco-voip
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
*On Behalf Of *Kenneth Hayes
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2013 3:14 PM
*To:* Eric Pedersen
*Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net VOIP
*Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP





I agree. SIP between your UC apps, and gateways is what I recommend. In
some cases you might need to use SCCP protocol but for the major stuff SIP
is what I recommend.

Sent from my iPad


On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Eric Pedersen <PedersenE at bennettjones.com>
wrote:

SIP works very well in CM 9.1. I don't know of any reason to use H.323
between CM and PRI gateways anymore.  MGCP still provides the simplest
configuration but you lose all the PRI calls if the connection between the
gateway and the CM it's registered to drops for some reason.



I suggest using the same protocol for all your gateways to reduce the
likelihood of problems with things like DTMF relay and faxes.



*From:* cisco-voip
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
*On Behalf Of *Candese Perez
*Sent:* 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
*To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net VOIP
*Subject:* [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP



Hello All,
I am working on a new CUCM 9.1 deployment with several branch offices using
PRI's.

Reading through the SRND and a few messages on this board, I am still not
sure which protocol to use for these gateways.

I know SIP is really prevalent now, and is much easier to troubleshoot, but
not sure if there are any issues in terms of features.



Additionally, this deployment will involve several VG 224's for fax, and
analog IVR components.

Does anyone have any suggestions either way SIP, H323, or MGCP or
particular features that work better/worse using a particular protocol?

Thanks!



The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged

subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact

the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms of communication,

e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized

parties. If you do not wish us to communicate with you by e-mail, please

notify us at your earliest convenience. In the absence of such

notification, your consent is assumed. Should you choose to allow us to

communicate by e-mail, we will not take any additional security measures

(such as encryption) unless specifically requested.



_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip



itevomcid
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130726/4764cfe9/attachment.html>