I don't know of any plans to sunset the VG224. The only difference between the VG224 and a ISR G2 is the PVDM3 DSPs. A 3845 and VG224 are functionally equivalent.<br><br>Differences between the PVDM2 and PVDM3's - video support. You'll see these be video transcoders/MCU type resources some time in the future. Possibly some enhanced codec support - namely the dreaded G.729-G.729 capability, and maybe some new codes. Price - they are cheaper as you scale towards some of the higher densities (PVDM3-256 and 128).<br>
<br>Feature wise today, between the VG224 and 3945, I would say is almost nothing. At least in terms of using it as a high density analog solution.<br><br>-nick<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I hear ya about the SG3 support. These are strictly analog lines for phones, not faxes, so I'm not too worried. However, from what I recall from discussions on this list is that the VG224s have updated DSPs and that it's in the IOS that gives the SG3 support. Definitely something to think about for a FAX deployment.<span><br>
<br>Not quite sure the 3945 bundle is a replacement for a VG224 though. It's 112 ports vs 24. However, if they come out with a 2901 bundle with 16 ports, then yes, I would think the VG224 days are numbered. With the new vic3-4fxs ports, this is a possibility. ;)<div class="im">
<br><br><span name="x"></span>---<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>
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><span name="x"></span><br></div></span><br><hr><b>From: </b>"Scott Voll" <<a href="mailto:svoll.voip@gmail.com" target="_blank">svoll.voip@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>To: </b>"Lelio Fulgenzi" <<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca" target="_blank">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:04:03 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [cisco-voip] a stack of VG224s vs C3945-112FXS/K9<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br>Are there any other features eg. Super G3 Fax that the 39xx supports that the VG's don't.<div>
<br></div><div>ISR2's are NOT going anywhere any time soon. I would be interested to know if Cisco came out with this package, how long it will be before the VG's get EoS/EoL as that seems to be Cisco's way. Bring out a replacement, then EoX the old stuff. Might be worth talking to the AM/SE about cisco's plans. I would hate to put out a bunch of $$$ and then have it EoX a month later....... Been there, Done that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just my 2 cents. (and we all know how much that's worth in today's economy ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>Scott<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca" target="_blank">lelio@uoguelph.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So I'm looking at migrating a large number of analog lines to our Cisco solution. Right now, the most economical approach is a stack of VG224s, however, Cisco has a (new) bundle, the <span>C3945-112FXS/K9. The per port cost is still quite a bit more (almost double) so I'm finding it difficult to justify even to myself, let alone mgmt. SmartNet costs are about equal, with the 3945 bundle just a bit cheaper.<br>
<br>I understand that I would be managing 4.5 VG224s to every 3945 bundle, but really, once these things go in, they're really just left alone. <br><br>Some other things I've been thinking:<br></span><ul><li>Pro: 3945 has a slightly denser port count per RU (112/4RU vs 96/4RU)</li>
<li>Pro: 3945 would use less uplink ports (2 per 112 vs 8 per 96)</li><li>Con: H/W issues would bring down 112 ports</li><li>Con: shelving a spare would be much more expensive</li><li>Con: configuration would be a bit more complex, different port types</li>
<li>Con: not known if SRST registration would behave the same way to a core 3945</li></ul>What do others think? What would you do?<br><br>Lelio<br><br><span><br><br><span></span>---<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>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br>
<span></span><br></span><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>