[cisco-voip] SBC/SIP Trunk Design queries

[Terry Cheema]

Tim,

Thanks for your detailed and a quick response, much appreciated.

Thanks,
Terry



On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Tim Smith <tim.smith at enject.com.au> wrote:

>  Hi Terry,
>
>
>
> I do quite a bit of CUBE, and have done a bit of Acme as well.
>
>
>
> There were some recent partner sessions that talk about some interesting
> things coming for CUBE, so it’s worth making sure you are getting latest
> roadmap info.
>
>
>
> My main comparison points..
>
>
>
> # HA
>
>
>
> In enterprise there was HA on CUBE, and it was improving in each release
> (but there are caveats with it)
>
> Have found Acme HA to be seamless and rock solid.
>
>
>
> # Deployment
>
>
>
> Cisco has some great interop guides – if you go with a carrier that has
> spent the money, a lot of the hard work has been done for you in terms of
> testing (as you know SIP can be implemented and configured in many
> different ways – if someone hasn’t done a lot of testing up front, you do
> sometimes end up adding SIP profiles and tweaks as you discover issues)
>
>
>
> Acme has some very thorough guides – I’m not sure if they have interop
> testing with carriers – given they are in SP’s a lot, there is a good
> chance they do. I’d look into it that with the Acme SE. Talk to prospective
> ITSP’s about their testing, and supported SBC’s.
>
>
>
> # Ops
>
>
>
> CUBE enterprise is great, IOS, most people are familiar. You will most
> likely need to train people on Acme
>
> I find troubleshooting a bit of a let down with CUBE. Basically log to
> buffer, copy to file, or packet captures. Wireshark with ladders or
> TranslatorX are great, but it’s getting the files there that bugs me.
>
> Alternatively, there did seem to be a few 3rd party tools out there, but
> you are probably looking at $$$
>
>
>
> Acme has web interface, list of calls and then ability to drill down with
> ladder diagrams, messaging capture etc. You should see this before making
> decision.
>
>
>
> Some good knowledge on Acme forums
>
> Acme has very flexible manipulation – CUBE is quite good too (and they
> have great profile testing tool) – plus you can also use CUCM LUA on the
> SIP trunk
>
>
>
> # On your other notes
>
>
>
> Centralised – this is great for flexibility DR etc, standard stuff be
> aware of the call volumes over the WAN, caller ID considerations for
> emergency and local pizza shop type services
>
>
>
> WAN – we terminate on existing equipment, and Acme is in a VLAN, I think
> this is most flexible.. you have a very flexible set up in Acme in regard
> to networking, lots of zones, interface options etc.
>
>
>
> Transcoding – I think you could still utilise CUCM registered transcoders
> for the ASR scenario..
>
>
>
> Virtual - We use virtual Acme, it had some teething problems in very first
> versions (and a clunky license on USB stick thing going on) but it seems to
> be good now
>
>                 We don’t have transcoding / media resources in the virtual
> edition
>
>
>
> Flow through / around – a lot of designs the carrier doesn’t have
> connectivity into the rest of the network, so flow through is quite typical.
>
>                 However, we do have carriers here that have SBC’s on your
> WAN, so flow through can be nice here – it also then makes CUBE HA less
> important, i.e. if call is set up, media is from end point to carrier SBC
> already (if no xcoding involved)
>
>
>
> So I won’t say one way or the other, just my thoughts on things you can
> consider.
>
> I like both, and will continue to work on both!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Terry Cheema
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 March 2015 1:10 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip voyp list
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] SBC/SIP Trunk Design queries
>
>
>
> Hi List,
>
>
>
> I am working on to finalize the SBC vendor for one of our environments. I
> have a couple of queries related to the SIP Trunk design and SBC vendor
> choices(basically CUBE vs Acme Packet). I would really appreciate if anyone
> with SIP Trunking/SBC expertise  (Cisco/Acme Packet) can provide some input
> on the below queries:
>
>
>
> 1)      *CUBE vs Acme Packet*: First of all Cisco has marked the CUBE SP
> Edition product line for EoL, exiting the SBC Service Provider segment, so
> leaving only SBC Enterprise as the option. Although at this stage we are
> looking for an enterprise grade SBC but it will be a plus if it has the
> potential to step up into a SP SBC in a multi-tenanted environment. I was
> comparing AP 3820 with the CUBE Ent ASR1k-x:
>
>
>
> CUBE provides no HA (though in some documents it says, came out from a
> meeting with the Cisco SME informing HA is not available), No transcoding
> (due to lack of DSP on ASR1K), No Multi-tenancy support  with all of these
> features supported in a 3820 SBC
>
> Any feature better in CUBE that I may have overlooked? I am aware that
> CUBE configuration etc. can be easy compared to Acme Packet but apart from
> that any solid reason to choose CUBE over AP?
>
> 2)      *HA vs Non-HA*: HA is obviously the preferred approach and looks
> like only possible with AP. Can anyone confirm the HA works as claimed by
> AP? Due to the costs involved in double the equipment – whats the common
> approach followed here HA or non-HA?
>
> 3)      *Centralised Design*: We are planning on a centralised SIP
> solution (with SBCs at both the DCs), anything to be careful of?
>
> 4)      *Transcoding*: CUBE ASR1K does not support transcoding (due to to
> lack of DSPs on this platform). Normally we would have an agreement with
> the provider on codecs, but still any scenarios when a SBC would need
> transcoding or on-board DSPs ?
>
> 5)      *WAN link termination* – If we are to provision new WAN links for
> the this SIP service, what’s the preferred approach – terminating WAN links
> directly on the SBC or on the existing routers, does Acme Packet supports
> WAN link termination?
>
> 6)      *Media flow around vs flow thru* – Any comments on which approach
> is better? I am preferring flow through at this stage. Any suggestions?
>
> 7)      *Acme Packet Virtual SBC*: I was looking into AP virtual SBC
> although it has a limited scalability at this stage, but would like to hear
> any input if anyone is using this.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Terry
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150311/7e3ae264/attachment.html>