Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

 

 

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


tednugent73 at gmail

Jul 26, 2012, 8:57 AM

Post #1 of 13 (2154 views)
Permalink
SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

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.
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....?


MLoraditch at heliontechnologies

Jul 26, 2012, 9:12 AM

Post #2 of 13 (2070 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

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.

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.


Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA

1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

voice. 410.252.8830
fax. 410.252.9284

Twitter<http://twitter.com/heliontech> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Helion/252157915296> | Website<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | Email Support<mailto:support [at] heliontechnologies?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request>


From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

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.
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....?


Dennis.Heim at wwt

Jul 26, 2012, 9:13 AM

Post #3 of 13 (2072 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

As long as you don't need the SIP specific features, such as some of the redundancy, etc. The telco is giving you a PRI, if a PRI is all you need, old fashion old school, then you would be fine.

Dennis Heim
Sr. UC Engineer
World Wide Technology
Office: 314.212.1814
Email: dennis.heim [at] wwt<mailto:dennis.heim [at] wwt>
www.wwt.com<http://www.wwt.com/>

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

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.
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....?


mh at markholloway

Jul 26, 2012, 9:31 AM

Post #4 of 13 (2076 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4 or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything gracefully manageable.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:

> 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.
> 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....?
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


rkulagow at gmail

Jul 26, 2012, 10:29 AM

Post #5 of 13 (2055 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Ted Nugent <tednugent73 [at] gmail> wrote:
> 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.

The one issue that I've run into with SIP->PRI is that you can't do
drop-and-insert style "channel stealing" for videoconferencing
equipment. (We have a PRI to telco, and then locally generate a PRI at
the router for cross-connect to a Polycom.)
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


jsteinberg at gmail

Jul 26, 2012, 12:13 PM

Post #6 of 13 (2063 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway> wrote:

> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
> handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who
> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4
> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
> gracefully manageable.
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > 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....?
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>


tednugent73 at gmail

Jul 26, 2012, 12:56 PM

Post #7 of 13 (2051 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to
CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy
should still be available although they might need to get creative on
outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the
sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and
chew out his account team.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail>wrote:

> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
> there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
> relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>wrote:
>
>> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
>> handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who
>> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4
>> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
>> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
>> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
>> gracefully manageable.
>>
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> > 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....?
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
>


VanMarenNP at ldschurch

Jul 29, 2012, 12:11 PM

Post #8 of 13 (2017 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

But cost being equal, I'd much rather have a traditional PRI that a SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.

If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are these existing PRI gateways that they can't just be converted to CUBEs?

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
To: Justin Steinberg
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?

Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy should still be available although they might need to get creative on outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and chew out his account team.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail<mailto:jsteinberg [at] gmail>> wrote:
I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway<mailto:mh [at] markholloway>> wrote:
Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4 or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything gracefully manageable.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:

> 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.
> 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....?
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip



NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.


tednugent73 at gmail

Jul 29, 2012, 4:42 PM

Post #9 of 13 (1994 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer they
are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more importantly
is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so
inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the
motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with faxing
or modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so
that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series
routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset
upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if the
provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential
implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???








On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
wrote:
>
> But cost being equal, Iíd much rather have a traditional PRI that a
SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems
that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
>
>
>
> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund
the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are
these existing PRI gateways that they canít just be converted to CUBEs?
>
>
>
> -Nate
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Justin Steinberg
> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>
>
>
> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to
CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy
should still be available although they might need to get creative on
outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the
sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and
chew out his account team.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail>
wrote:
>
> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
wrote:
>
> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who
needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4
or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
gracefully manageable.
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > 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....?
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>


matt.slaga at dimensiondata

Jul 30, 2012, 8:27 AM

Post #10 of 13 (1993 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most larger providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the location to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.



From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Nate VanMaren
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?


Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer they are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more importantly is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with faxing or modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if the provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???








On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch<mailto:VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>> wrote:
>
> But cost being equal, I'd much rather have a traditional PRI that a SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
>
>
>
> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are these existing PRI gateways that they can't just be converted to CUBEs?
>
>
>
> -Nate
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Justin Steinberg
> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>
>
>
> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy should still be available although they might need to get creative on outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and chew out his account team.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail<mailto:jsteinberg [at] gmail>> wrote:
>
> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway<mailto:mh [at] markholloway>> wrote:
>
> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4 or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything gracefully manageable.
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > 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....?
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck<mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>



itevomcid


erickbee at gmail

Jul 31, 2012, 11:22 PM

Post #11 of 13 (1952 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

I've seen this done for awhile now on clients who have done PRI
cutover's to other provider for cost savings. Sad thing is (kind of)
is sometimes customers don't know new provider is bringing in SIP and
handing off them as PRI sometimes. I've seen the adtran used for this
more widely but have also seen new provider bring a cisco router in
and do back-to-back PRI handoff to the customers cisco gateway. On one
I was involved with they used cisco gateway and new provider wouldn't
supply T1 crossover for the PRI connection to their cisco gateway so
we had to get them the cables.

I don't like this practice myself personally, but it does save client
money usually.

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Matt Slaga (AM)
<matt.slaga [at] dimensiondata> wrote:
> Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most larger
> providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the location
> to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
> To: Nate VanMaren
>
>
> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>
>
>
>
>
> Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer they
> are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more importantly
> is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so
> inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the
> motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with faxing or
> modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so
> that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series
> routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset
> upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if the
> provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential
> implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> But cost being equal, Iíd much rather have a traditional PRI that a
>> SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems
>> that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund
>> the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are these
>> existing PRI gateways that they canít just be converted to CUBEs?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -Nate
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
>> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
>
>> To: Justin Steinberg
>
>> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
>
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
>> multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to
>> CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy
>> should still be available although they might need to get creative on
>> outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the
>> sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and
>> chew out his account team.
>
>>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
>> there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
>> relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
>> handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who
>> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4
>> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
>> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
>> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
>> gracefully manageable.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>
>>
>
>> > 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.
>
>> > 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....?
>
>>
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>
>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>
>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> itevomcid
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


matthnick at gmail

Aug 5, 2012, 10:13 AM

Post #12 of 13 (1880 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

I'm not a big fan of it. If the customer is capable of managing a SIP
environment themselves, I wouldn't recommend having the adtran in there.
If they're looking to save a few dollars easily, it's not a terrible
solution. And I suppose if they didn't have any routers that could run
CUBE (28xx/38xx/8xx/29xx/39xx) then it would look like a large upfront
cost. If you've already got a PRI router I would just use that. My guess
is the savings would be larger to simply put CUBE licensing on an existing
router than it would be to have the adtran's in there absorbing some of the
savings.

As well, it reduces the call capacity on the link - 23 B channels vs ~60
g.729 calls on the same T1. If you want to do geographical redundancy -
probably not the same amount of options. If you want high availability
(HSRP/VRRP) - also not going to fly with the adtran setup.

Does it work for some really simple installations or customers - sure. Is
it best practice - I would say no. Are there times it should be used -
probably.

-nick

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Erick B. <erickbee [at] gmail> wrote:

> I've seen this done for awhile now on clients who have done PRI
> cutover's to other provider for cost savings. Sad thing is (kind of)
> is sometimes customers don't know new provider is bringing in SIP and
> handing off them as PRI sometimes. I've seen the adtran used for this
> more widely but have also seen new provider bring a cisco router in
> and do back-to-back PRI handoff to the customers cisco gateway. On one
> I was involved with they used cisco gateway and new provider wouldn't
> supply T1 crossover for the PRI connection to their cisco gateway so
> we had to get them the cables.
>
> I don't like this practice myself personally, but it does save client
> money usually.
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Matt Slaga (AM)
> <matt.slaga [at] dimensiondata> wrote:
> > Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most
> larger
> > providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the
> location
> > to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
> > To: Nate VanMaren
> >
> >
> > Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer
> they
> > are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more
> importantly
> > is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so
> > inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the
> > motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with
> faxing or
> > modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so
> > that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series
> > routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset
> > upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if
> the
> > provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential
> > implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> But cost being equal, Iíd much rather have a traditional PRI that a
> >> SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the
> problems
> >> that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund
> >> the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are
> these
> >> existing PRI gateways that they canít just be converted to CUBEs?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> -Nate
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> >> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> >
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
> >
> >> To: Justin Steinberg
> >
> >> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
> >> multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to
> >> CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy
> >> should still be available although they might need to get creative on
> >> outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for
> the
> >> sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off
> and
> >> chew out his account team.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg [at] gmail
> >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
> >> there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
> >> relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI
> >> handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer
> who
> >> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who
> needed 4
> >> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
> >> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were
> >> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
> >> gracefully manageable.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >> > 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....?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
> >
> >> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> >
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >
> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
> >
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any
> >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you
> >> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> email and
> >> destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > itevomcid
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>


tednugent73 at gmail

Aug 5, 2012, 10:58 AM

Post #13 of 13 (1891 views)
Permalink
Re: SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE? [In reply to]

They are not being charged for the Adtrans so I really don't see the point
of spending more and getting nothing with zero compelling reason... and
that is what I told them.
On Aug 5, 2012 1:14 PM, "Nick Matthews" <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'm not a big fan of it. If the customer is capable of managing a SIP
> environment themselves, I wouldn't recommend having the adtran in there.
> If they're looking to save a few dollars easily, it's not a terrible
> solution. And I suppose if they didn't have any routers that could run
> CUBE (28xx/38xx/8xx/29xx/39xx) then it would look like a large upfront
> cost. If you've already got a PRI router I would just use that. My guess
> is the savings would be larger to simply put CUBE licensing on an existing
> router than it would be to have the adtran's in there absorbing some of the
> savings.
>
> As well, it reduces the call capacity on the link - 23 B channels vs ~60
> g.729 calls on the same T1. If you want to do geographical redundancy -
> probably not the same amount of options. If you want high availability
> (HSRP/VRRP) - also not going to fly with the adtran setup.
>
> Does it work for some really simple installations or customers - sure. Is
> it best practice - I would say no. Are there times it should be used -
> probably.
>
> -nick
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Erick B. <erickbee [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> I've seen this done for awhile now on clients who have done PRI
>> cutover's to other provider for cost savings. Sad thing is (kind of)
>> is sometimes customers don't know new provider is bringing in SIP and
>> handing off them as PRI sometimes. I've seen the adtran used for this
>> more widely but have also seen new provider bring a cisco router in
>> and do back-to-back PRI handoff to the customers cisco gateway. On one
>> I was involved with they used cisco gateway and new provider wouldn't
>> supply T1 crossover for the PRI connection to their cisco gateway so
>> we had to get them the cables.
>>
>> I don't like this practice myself personally, but it does save client
>> money usually.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Matt Slaga (AM)
>> <matt.slaga [at] dimensiondata> wrote:
>> > Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most
>> larger
>> > providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the
>> location
>> > to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
>> > [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
>> > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
>> > To: Nate VanMaren
>> >
>> >
>> > Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
>> > Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer
>> they
>> > are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more
>> importantly
>> > is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO
>> so
>> > inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the
>> > motivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with
>> faxing or
>> > modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so
>> > that's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800
>> series
>> > routers with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset
>> > upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if
>> the
>> > provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential
>> > implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to
>> me???
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <
>> VanMarenNP [at] ldschurch>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> But cost being equal, Iíd much rather have a traditional PRI that a
>> >> SIP/PRI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the
>> problems
>> >> that most likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund
>> >> the purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are
>> these
>> >> existing PRI gateways that they canít just be converted to CUBEs?
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> -Nate
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
>> >> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
>> >
>> >> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
>> >
>> >> To: Justin Steinberg
>> >
>> >> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
>> >
>> >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no
>> >> multiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going
>> to
>> >> CUBE at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now.
>> Redundancy
>> >> should still be available although they might need to get creative on
>> >> outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for
>> the
>> >> sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin
>> off and
>> >> chew out his account team.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <
>> jsteinberg [at] gmail>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution
>> >> there are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf
>> >> relay, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh [at] markholloway>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to
>> PRI
>> >> handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer
>> who
>> >> needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who
>> needed 4
>> >> or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the
>> >> Service Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices
>> were
>> >> talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything
>> >> gracefully manageable.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >> > 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....?
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
>> >
>> >> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>> >
>> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >> cisco-voip mailing list
>> >
>> >> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> >
>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
>> Any
>> >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>> you
>> >> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>> email and
>> >> destroy all copies of the original message.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > itevomcid
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cisco-voip mailing list
>> > cisco-voip [at] puck
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.