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

[Amit Kumar]

SIP Supports all possible mechanisms of fax transmission, but yes, it
depends on ITSP as well, that what method they are supporting at their end
device.

Second most viable option is to use MGCP, for VG224s where fax and analog
devices would terminate.

SCCP is easier to implement , but have only NSE based fax mechanism, which
can create issue, if fax calls are sent over SIP trunks to PSTN, as NSE is
cisco protocol, which  works best when last IP hop is cisco router.




On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Kenneth Hayes <kennethwhayes at gmail.com>wrote:

> In my environment we have issues faxing via SIP with our carrier.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Eric Pedersen <PedersenE at bennettjones.com>
> wrote:
>
>  What T.38 issues are you referring to? We haven't had any problems.
>
>
>
> *From:* Kenneth Hayes [mailto:kennethwhayes at gmail.com<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> 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
>
>  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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130729/fc6b3572/attachment.html>