[cisco-voip] CUBE design consideration

[Yham]

Hi Ed and Blake,

Thanks for your input.

I started thinking that CUBE is not the right solution for me.

I read about Cisco VCS expressway and still reading more now. It seems this
product is an edge device specifically for video conferencing for mobile
telepresence endpoints e.g.  EX90, Movi. So it may partially serve the
purpose. I am trying to figure out if  1) it can terminate the Jabber and
other voice only softphones like IPcommunicator etc. 2) if it provide the
network hiding like cube using nat or some other techniques.

Blake,
I studied ASA as TLS and phone proxy but trying to find out if 1) they can
handle large volume of calls in SP environment without having issues. 2)
they supports both voice and video soft clients.
 May i please as if you have video endpoints like movi etc that terminate
on your ASAs. Secondly, how the remote users access your internal UC
infrastructure: using anyconnect vpn to ASA or you are translating (nat)
remote user's public address into internal private? Finally since you are
using encryption, can you please comment on user experience about voice
quality, issues like delay, jitter etc?

Thanks once again

Regards


On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List <
blake.mailinglist at pfankuch.me> wrote:

>  Ahmed,
>
>                 I cannot comment on using a CUBE to handle media
> terminations as you are discussing, however I have significant experience
> with the ASA UC Proxy functions.  We are using ASA 5550’s in HA as a UC
> Proxy termination point in our production corporate network.  The license
> is a little pricy, but as it sounds like you are in a reseller/provider
> platform the added security by enforcing sccp encryption could be a selling
> point to balance out the cost.  The setup process especially for a soft
> phone is quite easy for end users.  Not going to lie, the initial UCM/ASA
> setup can be a little bit of a pain, but allows you to enforce encryption
> at a selectable strength (aes family) on the calls.
>
>
>
> Questions, feel free to let me know.
>
>
>
> --Blake
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Ed Leatherman
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 9, 2013 9:52 PM
> *To:* Ahmed -Y
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] CUBE design consideration
>
>
>
> Ahmed,
>
>
>
> I can't comment on Cube, but maybe another product to review, I think
> cisco's expressway product might do some similar things.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps7060/ps11305/ps11315/ps11337/data_sheet_c78-697073.html
>
> —
> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ahmed -Y <yhameed81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    Hi Guys,
>
> I have few questions and really thankful if you answer them.
>
> Currently softphones from customers registered directly with shared UC
> infrastructure (cucm, unity, presence etc). Now we are planning to deploy
> some kinda gateway device and softphones from customer must
> register/terminate on it before reach to UC infra. This gateway device must
> hide the internal network and protect any potential attacks. Any advice
> please.
>
>
>
> 1) I read about cube. I provide topology hiding and protection but
> question is can softphones like jabber or movi be terminated on cube and
> then cube initiate separate call leg to cucm?
>
> 2) I understood cube hide topology using NAPT (nat), could there be any
> issues by enabling nat base hiding?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20131110/03c7a007/attachment.html>