<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I have not heard this and don’t see how it would be a problem. It actually makes things simple for a customer who isn’t SIP Experienced. You can stick to your
old school isdn debugs and is the PRI up/down and then have the Carrier be completely responsible for the SIP conversion and the QoS on the traffic. It’s especially advantageous when you already have all the equipment for the PRI setup.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’ll admit I haven’t discussed this with any SEs or AMs at Cisco, but I also do a lot of reading on the Cisco Partner and Support forums and can’t recall seeing
anything about this kind of setup being not recommended.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
1965 Greenspring Drive</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Timonium, MD 21093</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
voice. 410.252.8830<br>
fax. 410.252.9284 <br>
<br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/heliontech"><span style="color:blue">Twitter</span></a> |
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Helion/252157915296"><span style="color:blue">Facebook</span></a> |
<a href="http://www.heliontechnologies.com/"><span style="color:blue">Website</span></a> |
<a href="mailto:support@heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request">
<span style="color:blue">Email Support</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ted Nugent<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Cisco VoIPoE List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I received a call from a former client (I switched partners) that is migrating sites over from PRI to SIP and has an arrangement with his provider that they will provide PRI handoffs via Adtran gateways so that he does not need to purchase
additional hardware or licencing. Apparently, His Cisco account team caught wind of this and told him this was against "Cisco Best Practice", that he will experience nothing but problems and needs to have CUBE in place and take SIP directly to CUBE, then proceeded
to quote him $50k in upgraded routers and licensing.... This is where I got called and figured before I start up the bus and start tossing people under it I would ask you folks to see if there was anything I might be missing here? Using the PRI handofffs sound
reasonable to me since there does not seem to be any compelling reason I can think of to go to CUBE in his situation.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I've seen many clients running SIP trunks with PRI handoffs for the same reasons and to my knowledge have had zero problems.... It sounds to me like it's Cisco's Year End and someone is embellishing the truth to sell unnecessary gear....
Anyone else know of any issues of terminating the SIP trunk on an Adtran and providing a PRI handoff, assuming you don't need more than the 23 channels....?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>