<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Excellent summary Nick. Thanks!<br><br>---<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Nick Matthews" <matthnick@gmail.com><br>To: "Jason Fuermann" <JBF005@shsu.edu><br>Cc: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>, "Tim Reimers" <treimers@ashevillenc.gov>, cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:58:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco VOIP and fire alarm phone lines<br><br>The three most common problems with fire alarms are this:<br><br>1) DTMF. A few of the signaling methods use very precise and rapid<br>DTMF to communicate. This rapid method requires timing between the<br>digits and for the length of the DTMF must be preserved. This means<br>you can't use DTMF relay. This means you need to use SIP or H323 with<br>no dtmf-relay configured. MGCP/SCCP does not have the option to<br>disable dtmf-relay, and they're generally the protocol in use when<br>these problems arise.<br><br>2. Modems. Some of them do modem communication to communicate, and<br>you need to treat them like fax ports, and make sure modem passthrough<br>is configured correctly.<br><br>3. Voltage problems. A lot of these devices were designed a long<br>time ago when the average voltage supplied by an FXS port was much<br>higher. Voltage has been reduced around the board, especially with<br>VOIP devices that are on the FXS side. The VIC3-FXS has some<br>sub-models that allow for higher voltage and interop with older<br>devices. As well, there are 3rd party devices (like Viking I believe)<br>that offer some voltage assistance on these devices.<br><br><br>-nick<br><br>On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Fuermann, Jason <JBF005@shsu.edu> wrote:<br>> The common two modes,<br>><br>> Contact ID: uses hook switching to communicate<br>><br>> 4+2 or 4x2: uses touch tone to communicate<br>><br>> Had to put a butt set on it to figure out why it wasn’t working<br>><br>><br>><br>> We have 4+2 working on our campus using VG224’s running SCCP. The fire alarm<br>> guys get comm. failures and blame voip, but it has always been a pair<br>> problem on the copper. That being said, we are switching over to IP DACs<br>> because they are more reliable (monitored every 60 seconds for availability,<br>> and redundant from the closet instead of a copper pairs across campus on the<br>> same cable, through the same splices).<br>><br>><br>><br>> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<br>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:55 PM<br>> To: Tim Reimers<br>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco VOIP and fire alarm phone lines<br>><br>><br>><br>> There was some talk about this a while back and my research (mainly from the<br>> archives and contacting individuals) shows two things:<br>><br>> it depends on the protocol you are using (SCCP, MGCP, H323), and<br>> it depends on the protocol/functions of the alarms<br>><br>> If you are using simple alarms, that simply call home with no active data,<br>> then SCCP should be fine.<br>><br>> If you are using intelligent alarms, those that supply contact info for<br>> example, then I believe you have to go with H323.<br>><br>> If you do some searching on the archives, you'll get some threads you can<br>> look through.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)<br>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt<br>><br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Tim Reimers" <treimers@ashevillenc.gov><br>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:51:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco VOIP and fire alarm phone lines<br>><br>> Does anyone know if Cisco has any recommendations they officially make on<br>> supporting analog telephony devices like fire alarm panels?<br>><br>><br>><br>> We use ATAs for supplying dialtone to fire alarm dialers, and we're getting<br>> issues with some panels getting "comm trouble" issues, and data not getting<br>> to the monitoring company correctly.<br>><br>><br>><br>> The security vendors and the OEM manufacturers are saying "we don't<br>> recommend VOIP for alarm lines"<br>><br>><br>><br>> Our management is saying that surely Cisco supports this, and with the<br>> correct configuration, they can make this happen.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I'm looking for some official Cisco guidance (links to design guide<br>> statements, etc)<br>><br>> that might break the deadlock, and either allow me to prove to the vendors<br>> and OEMs that VOIP is indeed a stable technology<br>><br>> or, allow Cisco the graceful way of saying "it's best not to do that"<br>><br>><br>><br>> Anyone got anything to offer?<br>><br>><br>><br>> I'd imagine that there's a fair number of folks who've just decided not to<br>> use VOIP for this purpose-<br>><br>> That's just not the decision here though..and I'm not the policymaker on<br>> that level.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Tim<br>><br>> _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>><br></div></body></html>