[cisco-voip] SIP to PRI transcoding

[Peter Slow]

Hi Blake,
     Why are you using the CUBEs for terminating the T.38 in this
case? they shoudl sort of just be acting as TDM gateways for the
purpose of terminating the t.38. How many clusters do you have and
where are the fax server(s) and planned TDM gateways located?

Fax server --> CUCM ---> PRI theoretically requires no transcoding.
did i miss something?
Actually, even fax server -> cucm-> cube -> gateway shouldnt require it.

...trying to pass your t.38 through an MTP of any sort is going to
make your life difficult. what's mandating that?

i also don't entirely disagree with James regarding getting a new
carrier, but you'll still have better luck with a local gateway.

-Peter

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List
<blake.mailinglist at pfankuch.me> wrote:
> I am working with a faxing system that is giving me more nightmares than I
> can even count…  I am working with a software system that sends FoIP using
> T.38 and V.17 faxing.  It does not support G711 fallback, and that has been
> giving us fits like you would not believe our upstream carrier.  The
> specific issue lies in paths which do not support T.38 and are trying to do
> G711 fallback.  I have a pair of 3825 router configured as UBE’s in an HSRP
> configuration.
>
>
>
> I am looking to mitigate some of these issues by implementing a couple of
> TDM PRI’s (one to each device).  These PRI’s will be configured in an
> active/passive failover group from the carrier side uplinked into the
> existing 3825 UBE’s.
>
>
>
> My question is on the conversion as I have never done this before.  I know
> this will pull a DSP (or a couple) for each transcoding session, so I have 8
> PVDM 64’s I am going to throw in these routers.  I still need to be able to
> support SIP in case of a PRI failure as both PRI’s come in on the same
> channelized DS3.
>
>
>
> Has anyone had to do this before?  Specifically with T.38.  Had good luck
> with it or should I look towards the solution I planned for next year which
> was a pair of ASR1001 routers to act as SBC’s and handle these functions.
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
> Blake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>