[VoiceOps] Sylantro users

Fri Aug 7 19:55:24 EDT 2009

I’d clarify something about the statement below which says that “BroadWorks does not allow multiple registrations to a single DID”. From a purely semantic perspective BroadWorks does support multiple registrations per DID, but there’s definitely a difference in how Synergy did that vs. how BroadWorks does it, with some tradeoffs on each side.

In Synergy, their “Call Forking” feature allowed multiple access devices to register using the same AoR URI, which would result in a single AoR with multiple contacts. Calls to the subscriber would alert all the locations, and calls could be originated from any of the locations. The upside to this is that you could configure all those devices identically (with the same AoR and SIP authentication credentials), the downside to that strategy is that Synergy had no way to provide custom signaling to each device (which is not an issue if all of the user’s devices are the same, but is an issue if they are not, consider the case where a single user with has an IP phone, a cordless phone hanging off of an ATA, and a softclient). Synergy’s forking support was done at the protocol level.

In BroadWorks a user may have many devices (again, consider the case of a user with three devices, the IP phone, the ATA and the softclient). The user will have a primary device and then up to 35 other devices, known as Shared Call Appearances (then name of the BroadWorks feature for this functionality). The difference between Synergy Call Forking and SCA is that with BroadWorks, each device will use a unique AoR to register. Another way of saying this is that a subscriber can have many devices, with each device having a unique AoR, and each AoR having a single contact address. The upside to this way of supporting multiple devices is that BroadWorks will know the type of device that it is signaling too, and can customize that signaling based on the specific requirements of the particular device. The way you signal to an advanced IP phone will be different from the way you signal to an ATA will be different from the way you signal to a softclient. The downside might be that your device configs now have to be unique per device, but with modern device configuration management systems (including the one built into BroadWorks), that's really a red herring.

In addition to this way of doing things, BroadWorks allows users to have many phone numbers (BroadWorks is very user centric as opposed to being phone number or device centric). So, you could have the case where a single user has multiple Telephone Numbers, and any time any of those TNs are called, all of the user’s devices are alerted, and the user can take the call at any device, and the user can originate a call from any device. That kind of functionality is pretty straightforward and part of most systems, but one interesting bit we’ve added is the ability to move calls around between any of those locations by dialing a FAC. This capability is partially enabled by the SCA notion of unique AoRs per device.

Dag Peak
Senior Sales Engineer
dpeak at broadsoft.com
+1 240.364.5191

-----Original Message-----
From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of anorexicpoodle
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:20 PM
To: Brandon Buckner
Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] [LIKELY JUNK]Re: Sylantro users

Supporting forked registrations was a big consideration in our platform
decision as well, and once you have designed product around something
like that, there is no elegant way to backpedal. 

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 17:57 -0500, Brandon Buckner wrote:
> Another issue I’ve seen with Broadworks is that it doesn’t allow
> multiple registrations to a single DID. Broadsoft confirmed that. We
> have a large amount of customers using that feature on our Sylantro
> platform instead of one number/one phone, whichever happened to
> register last. As we already support a Broadworks installation for a
> big customer of ours via Taqua, we’ve got experience managing and
> configuring the system. It was just when we started looking ourselves
> that we didn’t want to do business like that. A big selling point on
> the Metaswitch solution right now (and we’ve not signed anything) is
> consolidating all the different portals for users and admins and
> support along with troubleshooting. Especially with the Service
> Assurance Server, there’s much less things to look at and 3rd party
> tools to utilize for the same or better diagnostic information,
> meaning faster resolution and better customer support. 
> 
>  
> 
> ----
> Brandon Buckner
> Switching Technician / VoIP Admin
> Iowa Network Services
> 515-830-0440 opt 1
> brandonb at netins.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>                                    
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org
> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of katia
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:44 PM
> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [VoiceOps] Sylantro users
> 
> 
>  
> 
> unfortunately some of the legacy Sylantro Synergy folks will never
> learn about the BroadWorks product if they get turned off by the sales
> folks though.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> i completely agree that their product is solid, as a long term
> broadworks user myself it is just a constant decision around if the
> product is *so* good that the lack of account management isn't an
> issue.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I really like the feedback i've been hearing about metaswitch on this
> list so it seems like certainly a good solution to thoroughly
> investigate.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Hiers, David <David_Hiers at adp.com>
> wrote:
> 
> Charm school dropouts are certainly not underrepresented there; but
> their stuff works.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>                                    
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On
> Behalf Of Brandon Buckner [BrandonB at netins.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:12 AM
> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Sylantro users
> 
> 
> We are still running Sylantro. We looked into Broadsoft as we manage a
> BW installation for a customer of ours, but pretty much everyone we
> talked to was an arrogant #^@& that acted like we owed them our
> business and really turned us off to them. We already have a
> Metaswitch for a PSTN gateway so we're looking heavily into their
> offerings. 
> 
>  
> 
> ----
> 
> Brandon Buckner
> 
> Switching Technician / VoIP Admin
> 
> IowaNetwork Services
> 
>  
> 
>                                    
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org
> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of katia
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [VoiceOps] Sylantro users
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi
> 
> Guess since no one else responded i can rep the Synergy platform :)
> 
> We've got the Synergy platform.  Haven't moved to another platform
> yet, still have a bunch of things to consider...
> 
> a) we have yet to receive an EOL/EOS notice from BroadSoft.  We're
> told it will be ~2 years but waiting for something official.
> 
> b) BroadSoft is working on an ability to migrate the base from the
> Synergy platform to the BroadWorks platform so will need to see how
> that works out.  I think if you have SIP Trunk customers or SIP Hosted
> customers you'll be OK but anyone that might be running MGCP the
> advance features just don't seem to be present on the BroadWorks
> platform.
> 
> c) There aren't a lot of other carrier grade platforms out there...
> Metaswitch, Sonus ASX, BroadSoft Broadworks are the big ones i can
> think of -- anyone have any other major vendors they would recommend?
> -- We are familiar with the BroadWorks platform but we're waiting for
> release 16 to come out with Sol10/x86 hardware support.
> 
> On top of all that, it is extremely costly to move customers from one
> platform to another so it will take several months to continue the
> evaluation and if a migration is required probably a couple years past
> that.
> 
> When you factor in ongoing M&S and licensing costs and the need to
> reduce network costs all the time... sometimes I wonder if building
> your own soft switch isn't the best route...
> 
> Are you still running the Synergy platform or have you already
> migrated to something new?
> 
> -katia
> 
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:32 AM, anorexicpoodle
> <anorexicpoodle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I see this list has a lot of Broadsoft users, anyone left running
> Sylantro? If you were a Sylantro shop until the buyout etc what
> platform
> did you move to and what steered the decision?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>                                    
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended
> recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message
> and any attachments from your system. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops