|
Home > Archive > Voice over IP Cisco > April 2006 > vg224 vs vg248
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
| |
| Ed Leatherman 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose
them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all
needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's
would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get
around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't
comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had
any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real
complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard
those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways
> (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps
> more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather
> keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting
> a new with vg224s.
>
> Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software.
> Do I need this?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Ortiz, Carlos 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| I had limited experience with the VG248 back in 2002. Had some issues
with it back then but I would assume they have long been resolved. We
currently have 2 VG224's in place and the best thing about them is that
they look and feel like the routers (IOS). Makes for easy configuration
(MGCP). As far as I remember the VG248's were menu driven. If you have
good experience with the 248's and need that type of density, I'm I
can't give you a compelling reason to change......
Carlos
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:45 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways
(vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports
(perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248.
I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather
than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software.
Do I need this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
| |
| Madziarczyk, Jonathan 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the
two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is
concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC
address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP
address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It
looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but
just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust.
Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use
them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box
and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
_____
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the
reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that
the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote
campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density
but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't
recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center,
haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but
thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed
fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them
down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog
gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128
ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the
vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them
rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC
software. Do I need this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has more features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Ed Leatherman 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| This is good to know, I was told we could use the loopback address. I'll see
what I can dig up on it... wish I had a box here to mess with.
On 4/10/06, Madziarczyk, Jonathan <JMad@cityofevanston.org> wrote:
>
> I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the
> two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is
> concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address
> so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the
> device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be
> able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
>
>
>
> Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just
> know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just
> because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the
> way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple
> as all getout to configure in MGCP.
>
>
>
> My $.02
>
>
>
> JM
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
> *To:* Ed Leatherman
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> I like the idea of redundant links.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we
> chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices
> all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's
> would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get
> around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't
> comment on anything else about the 224's.
>
> We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really
> had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real
> complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard
> those werent supported unless you turn them down.
>
> On 4/10/06, *Lelio Fulgenzi* <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways
> (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps
> more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather
> keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting
> a new with vg224s.
>
>
>
> Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software.
> Do I need this?
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
>
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> IP Telephony Coordinator
> West Virginia University
> Telecommunications and Network Operations
>
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Justin Steinberg 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| I use the VG248 for both SMDI voicemail integration with a legacy
Octel system and also for misc. analog access for fax, modem, etc.
The VG248 registers each port individually with the CallManager as a
Cisco phone type 'Cisco VGC Phone' and thus uses SCCP signalling. So
you lose some flexibility that an IOS gateway would provide.
However, the VG248 does support fax relay and passthrough, and I've
had no problem with these gateways as long as they are configured
correctly.
The only issue I've had with them is that every once in a while I have
issues with the power supply failing - which causes the (single) Fast
Ethernet interface to bounce between full/half duplex. The power
supply is built in and therefore the entire unit must be replaced. My
VG248s are a couple years old so maybe the new units don't have this
issue.
Justin
On 4/10/06, Ortiz, Carlos <CORTIZ@broward.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had limited experience with the VG248 back in 2002. Had some issues wi=
th
> it back then but I would assume they have long been resolved. We current=
ly
> have 2 VG224's in place and the best thing about them is that they look a=
nd
> feel like the routers (IOS). Makes for easy configuration (MGCP). As far=
as
> I remember the VG248's were menu driven. If you have good experience with
> the 248's and need that type of density, I'm I can't give you a compelling
> reason to change=85=85
>
>
>
>
>
> Carlos
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
>
>
> Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg2=
48
> vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more)
> and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep
> our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a =
new
> with vg224s.
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. =
Do
> I need this?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
| |
| Madziarczyk, Jonathan 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can
enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not
support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you
a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't
feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you
have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you).
The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your
default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation
of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated
or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if
you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't
in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address
in CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP
provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax
machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even
support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM.
You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog
port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to
point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports
are done on the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may
be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make
changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to
administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and
simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
_____
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has
more features.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> ; Ed Leatherman
<mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to
make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as
CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the
MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the
IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It
looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm
sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not
as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean
you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty
nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
_____
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer,
the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement
that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on
remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port
density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement.
Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the
224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences
center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on
them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a
high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you
turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two
analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires
128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with
the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards
them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for
IPSEC software. Do I need this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph,
Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer
overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-10, 6:56 pm |
| Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you). The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address in CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM. You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports are done on the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has more features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Ed Leatherman 2006-04-11, 7:57 am |
| Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the
vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC address for f0/0
in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine. you can shut down f0/0
or unplug it and it will keep working from the f0/1 interface. I dont have
any additional details yet but that sounds promising.. I'm trying to get an
official nod that this setup would be TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort
> people on this list put in to helping each other out.
>
> Lelio
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Madziarczyk, Jonathan <JMad@cityofevanston.org>
> *To:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
> For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can
> enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not support
> EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you a subnet to
> have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't feel like
> redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you have multiple
> vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you). The other option
> is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your default gateways to
> get that loopback address into your routing tables.
>
> My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation of
> uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated or do I
> want to support stable and simple?
>
>
>
> As for the SCCP/MGCP:
>
>
>
> That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if
> you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't in
> SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address in CCM.
>
>
>
> If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP
> provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax
> machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even
> support the features you want to use?
>
>
>
> In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM.
> You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog port as
> well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to point it to your
> CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports are done on the
> CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may be a non-issue, but
> if anything doesn't work, or you need to make changes, you now have
> essentially two separate configurations to administer for every line.
>
>
>
> So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and
> simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
>
>
>
> I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
>
>
>
> JM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
> *To:* Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has
> more features.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Madziarczyk, Jonathan <JMad@cityofevanston.org>
>
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> ; Ed Leatherman<ealeatherman@gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the
> two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is
> concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address
> so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the
> device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be
> able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
>
>
>
> Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just
> know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just
> because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the
> way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple
> as all getout to configure in MGCP.
>
>
>
> My $.02
>
>
>
> JM
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
> *To:* Ed Leatherman
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> I like the idea of redundant links.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
>
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
>
>
>
> I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we
> chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices
> all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's
> would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get
> around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't
> comment on anything else about the 224's.
>
> We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really
> had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real
> complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard
> those werent supported unless you turn them down.
>
> On 4/10/06, *Lelio Fulgenzi* <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways
> (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps
> more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather
> keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting
> a new with vg224s.
>
>
>
> Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software.
> Do I need this?
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
> 50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
>
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> IP Telephony Coordinator
> West Virginia University
> Telecommunications and Network Operations
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Craig M Staffin 2006-04-11, 7:57 am |
| Is anything we ever do "TAC Supported" I know alot of things I do are not
"Ed Leatherman" <ealeatherman@gmail.com>
Sent by: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
04/11/2006 07:26 AM
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>
cc: "Madziarczyk, Jonathan" <JMad@cityofevanston.org>,
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the
vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC address for f0/0
in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine. you can shut down
f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the f0/1 interface. I dont
have any additional details yet but that sounds promising.. I'm trying to
get an official nod that this setup would be TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort
people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can
enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not
support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you a
subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't feel
like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you have
multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you). The
other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your
default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation of
uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated or do
I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if
you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't
in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address in
CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP
provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax
machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even
support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM.
You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog port
as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to point it to
your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports are done on
the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may be a
non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make changes, you
now have essentially two separate configurations to administer for every
line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and
simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has
more features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the
two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is
concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC
address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP
address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks
like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just
know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just
because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them
the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is
simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we
chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices
all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus).
248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we
couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them
yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really
had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real
complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I
heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways
(vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps
more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather
keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than
starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software.
Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations ________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
| |
| Ed Leatherman 2006-04-11, 7:57 am |
| Good point 
I do want to make sure that the "feature" isn't going to up and disappear in
later software releases.
On 4/11/06, Craig M Staffin <CMStaffin@ra.rockwell.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is anything we ever do "TAC Supported" I know alot of things I do are not
>
>
>
>
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-17, 11:57 pm |
| Interesting, I just got a note back from my SE with what I'm sure was 'cut and pasted' advantages to the vg224 and it had redundancy in there. It will be interesting to see what you find out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC address for f0/0 in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine. you can shut down f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the f0/1 interface. I dont have any additional details yet but that sounds promising.. I'm trying to get an official nod that this setup would be TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you). The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address in CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM. You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports are done on the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has more features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
| |
| Matt Slaga \(US\) 2006-04-17, 11:57 pm |
| Just a few months ago I had tac working feverishly on several usability
issues with the vg224s. Their fix: They replaced the vg224s with
vg248s.
Redundancy is not fully capable on any of the models as they all have a
single power supply. If you are that worried about redundancy, get the
CMM with FXS modules.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Interesting, Ijust got a note back from my SE with what I'm sure was
'cut and pasted' advantages to the vg224 and it had redundancy in there.
It will be interesting to see what you find out.
----- OriginalMessage -----
From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org> ;
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject:Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the
vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden
real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can usethe MAC
address for f0/0 in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine.
you can shut down f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the
f0/1 interface. I dont have any additional details yet but that sounds
promising.. I'm trying to get an official nod that this setup would be
TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the
time and effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph,
Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer
overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
<mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org>
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my
statement. You can enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site.
VG224 does not support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP
could cost you a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is
supported). I didn't feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for
one device (if you have multiple vg224s in one location that may make
more sense for you). The other option is to set multiple static routes
on the VG224 and your default gateways to get that loopback address into
your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much
higherexpectation of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support
fancy and complicated or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than
MGCP. However, if you'retrying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet
interfaces you can't in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can
only enter one address inCCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular
features that SCCP provides did you want? Would you be doing blind
transfers with a fax machine or credit card machine? If analog phones,
will the phones even support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the
VG224 and the CCM. You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224
configure each analog port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic
commands in the VG224 to point it to your CCM and from there all the
configurations for the ports are done on the CCM. If you're familiar
with the IOS commands, that may be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't
work, or you need to make changes, you now have essentially two separate
configurations to administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of
redundancy and simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
________________________________
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to
show that SCCP has more features.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph,
Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer
overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
<mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> ;
Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able
to find a way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant
interfaces as far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you
have to specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using
MGCP, you enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address
will not work. It looks like you might be able to useHSRP, but I've
never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant
interface issue I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's
running IOS, it's not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet
interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the way you may be wanting
to. Otherwise it's a pretty nicebox and is simple as all getout to
configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph *
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:
buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
<mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
<mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's onorder for a
project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was
we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet
interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would havebeen less
expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get aroundthe dual
interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on
anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health
sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer
IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook
up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless
you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <
lelio@uoguelph.ca <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> > wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions
are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project
that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience
(mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so
I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new withvg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there
is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of
Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX
(JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer
than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of
the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network
Operations
________________________________
______________________________________
_________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
______________________________________
_________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications andNetwork Operations
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
| |
| Ortiz, Carlos 2006-04-17, 11:57 pm |
| What kind of issues were you having that they couldn't fix? That's not
comforting to hear.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Just a few months ago I had tac working feverishly on several usability
issues with the vg224s. Their fix: They replaced the vg224s with
vg248s.
Redundancy is not fully capable on any of the models as they all have a
single power supply. If you are that worried about redundancy, get the
CMM with FXS modules.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Interesting, I just got a note back from my SE with what I'm sure was
'cut and pasted' advantages to the vg224 and it had redundancy in there.
It will be interesting to see what you find out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org> ;
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the
vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden
real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC
address for f0/0 in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine.
you can shut down f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the
f0/1 interface. I dont have any additional details yet but that sounds
promising.. I'm trying to get an official nod that this setup would be
TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and
effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org>
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement.
You can enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does
not support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost
you a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't
feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you
have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you).
The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your
default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher
expectation of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and
complicated or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP.
However, if you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet
interfaces you can't in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can
only enter one address in CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features
that SCCP provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers
with a fax machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the
phones even support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and
the CCM. You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each
analog port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224
to point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the
ports are done on the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands,
that may be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to
make changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to
administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy
and simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
________________________________
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that
SCCP has more features.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
<mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> ; Ed
Leatherman <mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a
way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as
far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to
specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you
enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not
work. It looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried
it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue
I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's
not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't
mean you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a
pretty nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph,
Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer
overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
<mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
To: Lelio Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this
summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a
requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for
a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to
the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface
requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything
else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health
sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer
IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook
up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless
you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio@uoguelph.ca
<mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> > wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the
two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that
requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly
good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm
leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an
option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph *
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day:
buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
________________________________
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
________________________________
Disclaimer:
This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
| |
| Lelio Fulgenzi 2006-04-17, 11:57 pm |
| definately not comforting to hear.
if you could post some details, that would be great.
usability as in client end or mgmt end?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ortiz, Carlos
To: Matt Slaga (US) ; Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
What kind of issues were you having that they couldn't fix? That's not comforting to hear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Just a few months ago I had tac working feverishly on several usability issues with the vg224s. Their fix: They replaced the vg224s with vg248s.
Redundancy is not fully capable on any of the models as they all have a single power supply. If you are that worried about redundancy, get the CMM with FXS modules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Interesting, I just got a note back from my SE with what I'm sure was 'cut and pasted' advantages to the vg224 and it had redundancy in there. It will be interesting to see what you find out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Ok, here is what I have found so far from my SE about the vg224/SCCP/redundant Link scenario...
This is undocumented on CCO at the moment (unless it's hidden real good)
If you bind SCCP to the L0 interface, you can use the MAC address for f0/0 in callmanager to set up the ports and it works fine. you can shut down f0/0 or unplug it and it will keep working from the f0/1 interface. I dont have any additional details yet but that sounds promising.. I'm trying to get an official nod that this setup would be TAC supported.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Excellent comments, thanks. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort people on this list put in to helping each other out.
Lelio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
For the Loopback address, let me explain some of my statement. You can enter a Loopback address. We use EIGRP at our site. VG224 does not support EIGRP, it does seem to support RIP and OSPF. RIP could cost you a subnet to have a loopback (not sure if v2 is supported). I didn't feel like redistributing EIGRP into OSPF just for one device (if you have multiple vg224s in one location that may make more sense for you). The other option is to set multiple static routes on the VG224 and your default gateways to get that loopback address into your routing tables.
My philosophy is: These are phones, there is a much higher expectation of uptime and low-latency. Do I want to support fancy and complicated or do I want to support stable and simple?
As for the SCCP/MGCP:
That is correct, SCCP does provide more features than MGCP. However, if you're trying to use the redundancy of two Ethernet interfaces you can't in SCCP because it wants a MAC address, you can only enter one address in CCM.
If you're attaching analog devices, what particular features that SCCP provides did you want? Would you be doing blind transfers with a fax machine or credit card machine? If analog phones, will the phones even support the features you want to use?
In SCCP world, the configuration is split between the VG224 and the CCM. You have to configure the CCM and in the VG224 configure each analog port as well. In MGCP you enter 3-5 basic commands in the VG224 to point it to your CCM and from there all the configurations for the ports are done on the CCM. If you're familiar with the IOS commands, that may be a non-issue, but if anything doesn't work, or you need to make changes, you now have essentially two separate configurations to administer for every line.
So if the features in SCCP override the advantages of redundancy and simplicity, then it sounds like SCCP is the way to go.
I think I'm up to $.04 now, or maybe a half-shilling.
JM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
why would one use MGCP over SCCP? the chart seems to show that SCCP has more features.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Madziarczyk, Jonathan
To: Lelio Fulgenzi ; Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I use a VG224. I have currently not been able to find a way to make the two Ethernet Interfaces work as redundant interfaces as far as CCM is concerned. If you're using SCCP to CCM you have to specify the MAC address so that doesn't work. If you're using MGCP, you enter the IP address of the device. Using a loopback address will not work. It looks like you might be able to use HSRP, but I've never tried it.
Someone here can speak to the redundant interface issue I'm sure, but just know that even though it says it's running IOS, it's not as robust. Just because it has two Ethernet interfaces, it doesn't mean you can use them the way you may be wanting to. Otherwise it's a pretty nice box and is simple as all getout to configure in MGCP.
My $.02
JM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I like the idea of redundant links.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Leatherman
To: Lelio Fulgenzi
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
I have some vg224's on order for a project this summer, the reason we chose them instead of the 248's was we had a requirement that the devices all needed dual ethernet interfaces (is for a dorm on remote campus). 248's would have been less expensive due to the port density but we couldnt get around the dual interface requirement. Haven't recieved them yet so I can't comment on anything else about the 224's.
We've been using the 248's in our health sciences center, haven't really had any problems with them. I'd prefer IOS on them but thats my only real complaint. No one has tried to hook up a high speed fax yet though, I heard those werent supported unless you turn them down.
On 4/10/06, Lelio Fulgenzi < lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Just wondering what people's opinions are on the two analog gateways (vg248 vs vg224). I'm proposing a project that requires 128 ports (perhaps more) and we only have experience (mostly good) with the vg248. I'd rather keep our inventory similar so I'm leaning towards them rather than starting a new with vg224s.
Also, in the configuration guide, there is an option for IPSEC software. Do I need this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
________________________________________
_______
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--
Ed Leatherman
IP Telephony Coordinator
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
| |
| Derek Dolan 2006-04-17, 11:57 pm |
| For what it's worth, our cisco VAR absolutely refused to sell us VG224s
due to problems on several other customers' installations.
I have two VG248s and have been reasonably happy with them. I've had
some issues with one of the units having ports go "dead" according to
the install site, but I haven't had time to troubleshoot vs. just moving
the phone to a different port.
- Derek
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:45 AM
To: Ortiz, Carlos; Matt Slaga (US); Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
definately not comforting to hear.
if you could post some details, that would be great.
usability as in client end or mgmt end?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Network Analyst (CCS) * university of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than
50 messages in my inbox at the end of the day: buffer overrun
----- Original Message -----
From: Ortiz, Carlos <mailto:CORTIZ@broward.org>
To: Matt Slaga (US) <mailto:Matt.Slaga@us.didata.com> ; Lelio
Fulgenzi <mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca> ; Ed Leatherman
<mailto:ealeatherman@gmail.com>
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan <mailto:JMad@cityofevanston.org> ;
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
What kind of issues were you having that they couldn't fix?
That's not comforting to hear.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Ed Leatherman
Cc: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vg224 vs vg248
Just a few months ago I had tac working feverishly on several
usability issues with the vg224s. Their fix: They replaced the vg224s
with vg248s.
Redundancy is not fully capable on | | |