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

[Eric Pedersen]

What T.38 issues are you referring to? We haven't had any problems.

From: Kenneth Hayes [mailto:kennethwhayes at gmail.com]
Sent: 26 July 2013 3:47 PM
To: Jason Aarons (AM)
Cc: Eric Pedersen; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] TDM to IP VG's SIP, H323, MGCP

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<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Kenneth Hayes
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:14 PM
To: Eric Pedersen
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Candese Perez
Sent: 25 July 2013 8:07 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


itevomcid

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130729/55355da1/attachment.html>