Dennis.Heim at cdw
Nov 4, 2009, 7:02 PM
Post #17 of 17
(202 views)
Permalink
|
SIP is like pre-draft 802.11n. Until SIP progresses back each vendor bucket of RFCs that they choose to support then it can be a standard based protocol. But for now there is Nortel SIP, Cisco SIP.
I wish cisco would allow some of the POTS commands on the VOIP dial-peers such as forward digits etc. I know you can do it all with translation profiles/reg-ex but typing a command that resembles English would be appreciated.
Dennis Heim
Network Voice Engineer
CDW Advanced Technology Services
11711 N. Meridian Street, Suite 225
Carmel, IN 46032
317.569.4255 Office
317.569.4201 Fax
317.694.6070 Cell
dennis.heim[at]cdw.com<mailto:dennis.heim[at]cdw.com>
www.berbee.com<http://www.berbee.com/>
From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Smith
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:08 PM
To: Nick Matthews
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol
Thanks Nick, that is really great info!
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick[at]gmail.com<mailto:matthnick[at]gmail.com>> wrote:
I think there are a few different factors - but it's the protocol I
would use if I was administering my network.
We see a lot of SIP gateways, and it's definitely being deployed.
Some of the advantages:
-Easy to troubleshoot. You can read up on SIP and learn the basics
2-3x faster than other protocols. It's clear and concise for the most
part.
-Interop. Most of the new devices coming out are all running SIP.
You'll have less pain with SIP-SIP than SIP-H323 or SIP-MGCP, plus
experience with it already.
-Easier transition to SIP as your PSTN connection (last post) if/when
you decide to make that jump.
-If you're already running H323, switching over is pretty easy.
Other considerations:
-H323 is still the best at video, and for a while, there doesn't
appear to be any real alternatives.
-MGCP is still the only 'centralized dial plan' protocol where you
don't have to do anything on your gateways at all. If you're not good
with IOS and just 'want it to work', this is still the protocol to
look at. It comes with it's own troubles, bugs, and instability
because of it.
-Some older devices don't support SIP yet, and you may still be
running H323 in the network anyways.
-For more advanced call flows and designs, you may run into some
unsupported features. (Like using ANN for ringback, I think that is
still H323 only).
-I would recommend CUCM 6.x+ and 12.4(20)T and later for SIP trunks.
If you have older platforms like the 3700, CMM, that won't run 20.T, I
would stick to your existing protocol. Likewise for CUCM versions
prior to 6.x. The SIP stacks in the versions prior just aren't as
stable or have as many features.
-nick
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:37 AM, VoiceNoob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com<mailto:voicenoob[at]gmail.com>> wrote:
> Nick that is what I am asking. I in no way want to go with a SIP trunk to
> the PSTN I just want to use SIP as my gateway protocol. So the Telco still
> hands me a PRI / FXO lines and instead of using MGCP or H.323 I would use
> SIP. As far as why drop H.323 I don't have a reason to but when doing new
> customer deployments I don't want to put one thing in and then migrate to
> something else two years down the road.
>
>
>
> So I ask my question again has anyone used SIP as their GW protocol instead
> of H.323? Any problems or things I should look for? Should I just not do it
> yet.
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net>
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of Tim Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:07 PM
> To: Nick Matthews
> Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
>
> What about using SIP just as protocol to replace H323 / MGCP between CCM and
> your Voice Gateway?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick[at]gmail.com<mailto:matthnick[at]gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> You can get an over-the-top SIP provider, but if you get voice quality
> problems you'll have some trouble getting your ISP and SIP provider to
> play nicely. Once it leaves your gateway you can't prove who may be
> causing the problem if there is jitter or packet loss. Your ISP
> probably won't have any idea how to deal with it, because for
> traditional data these types of packet problems do not have much
> consequence.
>
> If you're cool with that, there are hundreds of providers of varying
> quality.
>
> The suggestion is still to go with the data line from the SIP
> provider. You may be able to save some money on equipment
> consolidation or pricing depending on your volume / area as well.
> It's not the best scenario for every case, but there are certainly
> cases where it makes since and these cases are growing.
>
>
> -nick
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Tim Smith <thsglobal[at]gmail.com<mailto:thsglobal[at]gmail.com>> wrote:
>> We dont have too many SIP providers here in Oz at the moment anyway.
>> We were talking about just using SIP between CCM and the Gateway. Vs MGCP
>> and H323.
>>
>> Fax / modem could definitely be a good point though.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio[at]uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio[at]uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From our initial conversations with our PSTN providers, SIP was a few
>>> years away with feature parity with H323/MGCP/PRI trunks.
>>>
>>> FAX support was definately out of the question, and there were crazy
>>> requirements about not being able to do voice only on the ethernet trunk.
>>> We
>>> had to buy a data package that was no more than 50% voice traffic. For
>>> us,
>>> we get our internet through our regional network at dirt cheap prices
>>> because we basically run a co-op. For others it might make sense to move
>>> to
>>> the same PSTN/SIP/Internet carrier, but for us it didn't. Even our backup
>>> internet link is cheaper than the PSTN provider could price I believe.
>>>
>>> The other thing was route diversity and multiple demarcs. I think those
>>> were quite expensive where as now, we get it at no extra cost.
>>>
>>> I've long been a proponent of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even when
>>> we went to tender and ended up switching our PRIs to another local
>>> carrier,
>>> it was a LOT of work. I understood it saved us quite a bit of money, so
>>> it
>>> was worth it in the end for a three year contract. That being said, don't
>>> expect that SIP will be cheaper than PRIs and/or without it's own
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Caveat Emptor as my friend Caesar said.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Tim Smith
>>> To: STEVEN CASPER
>>> Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:46 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP as a gateway Protocol
>>> Also, SIP is slightly easier to troubleshoot than H323, much more so than
>>> MGCP. (And I also dont like MGCP anyway :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Tim Smith <thsglobal[at]gmail.com<mailto:thsglobal[at]gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea.
>>>>
>>>> More and more SIP trunks will be turning up. Why bother having to go
>>>> from
>>>> H323 to SIP. Simpler just to run SIP.
>>>>
>>>> I also like SIP and how you can set it up to monitor the destination of
>>>> your dial-peers. Shut them down if a CCM is down.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER[at]mtb.com<mailto:SCASPER[at]mtb.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are talking traditional analog and digital PSTN
>>>>> gateways, why are you considering migrating to SIP to control these as
>>>>> opposed to H323? .
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com<mailto:voicenoob[at]gmail.com>> 11/3/2009 6:09 PM >>>
>>>>> Has anyone started using SIP on the PSTN gateway? I want to use it
>>>>> instead of H.323 or MGCP and start migrating it to SIP on the gateway.
>>>>> Any
>>>>> experience with this? Can I get Calling Name and Number from the PSTN
>>>>> side?
>>>>>
>>>>> ************************************
>>>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that
>>>>> is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the
>>>>> intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from
>>>>> disclosing,
>>>>> copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the
>>>>> transmission. If you received this communication in error, please
>>>>> contact
>>>>> the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety,
>>>>> whether
>>>>> electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic
>>>>> personal
>>>>> information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the
>>>>> Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not
>>>>> directly or
>>>>> indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other
>>>>> than to
>>>>> provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission.
>>>>> The
>>>>> sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal
>>>>> or
>>>>> service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security,
>>>>> receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>>>> ************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
--
Cheers,
Tim
Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
|
