<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Thanks Jason. <br><br>By "data" I meant the data portion of the voice service, not actually computer/internet data.<br><br>So, I have a PRI that is for voice and voice only. I pay for the "data" portion and the "voice" portion separately, but it's still just for voice. I think it's a way for the telco to provide stepped volumes of voice channels. You pay for the whole PRI physically (data) but can subscribe to logical portions (voice) separately.<br><br>Wondering if anyone (probably Bell Canada customers) have done this.<br><br>Lelio<br><br><span><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 (ANNU)<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></span><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Jason Aarons (AM)" <jason.aarons@dimensiondata.com><br><b>To: </b>"Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>, cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:05:03 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>RE: [cisco-voip] fractional T1 vs multiple PRI with fewer PSTN Connectivities<br><br><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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]--><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So you can split channels between pri-group (pri) and channel-group (data) on a single PRI (I recall voice has to be at bottom channels 1-x and data at top x-23). With MGCP Cisco didn’t support Fractional PRIs, however I have a large customer who has run this configuration since CallManager 5/6 with USLec (now Paetec) for 6 years with no problems, just can’t call TAC saying it’s broke. We never set the Callmanager Service Parameter for busy out, but under the Serial interface we did busy out the DSOs being used for Data and removed ccm-manager config (changes require no mgcp/mgcp).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Again while it works fine, Cisco doesn’t “support” Fractional MGCPt (yet the CCIE lab could test you on it</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><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>Lelio Fulgenzi<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br><b>Subject:</b> [cisco-voip] fractional T1 vs multiple PRI with fewer PSTN Connectivities</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><br>Our PRI server is divided into the data portion and voice portion. These voice portions are called PSTN connectivities. My plan is to maintain 2 PRIs at the remote site for failover but only subscribe to the number of PSTN connectivities they use, which should greatly reduce our costs.<br><br>I'm thinking that because the PSTN connectivities are logical limits imposed by the telco, I won't need to worry about fractional T1 settings and using these out of service service parameters that have been talked about on the list in the past.<br><br>Thoughts?<br><br>Lelio<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 (ANNU)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><br></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><span style="color:white">itevomcid</span> </p></div></div></body></html>