32 IP phone limit in page group

[lowradiation]

I have an install with 60 phones. They want to continue to have the ability to page over all their phones. (guess I can tell them they can upgrade to a mxe III with an e2t - but more $$$ and still limits them to a total of 64)

Has anyone found a solution for this drawback?

I did see back on the pet peeves post where someone said it can be done but have to get a 3rd party product involved (BENBRIA)

I checked the Benbria website and it looks like a separate server would have to be installed - it is very vague on its description. Has anyone used this Benbria product and does it allow you to use a Mitel phone to page over all Mitel phones on the same subnet?

 

[DrDeee]

The system will allow oversubscription, however the system may not get the page sent to all the phones at the same instant.
The effect will be a delay that can be heard and customer may complain.
From the Manual:
Note: The number of IP Phones in a page group is limited to 50% of the available E2T channels. On most systems, the actual limit will be less than the physically provisioned limit of E2T channels. Paging groups should be configured with this in mind.

 

[LoopyLou]

The Blaze cast product works well. I think what it does is you define a bunch of groups within the 64 member limit and Blazecast does them one after the other so it appears to be one broadcast.

I'd tell you a UDP joke but I'm afraid you won't get it. TCP jokes are the best because you always get them.

 

[kwbMitel]

Regarding DrDeee's comments:

Oversubscription: Yes you can program more than the limit. However, the system will automatically limit the broadcast to a number of phones within the limit. It will not delay. I have found no pattern to the selection process of which phone will receive the page and which will not.

E2T Limit: E2T channels are used for a number of things that are not related to paging. Rarely will all E2T channels be available for paging. As such, the 32 phone limit is the maximum but rel world situations would reduce the actual limit. e.g. With 10 outside calls in progress the page limit would be 27.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[Crowtalks]

Even though I haven't tried this with a 3300, I have run into this with a 5000 and also, the same issue appeared years ago with a Nortel and Meridian IP phones with about the same limit (proves these guys all go to the same bar after work...).

Anyway, with the 5000, I worked backward until I had an acceptable delay at about 35 5330's.

No solution, just an observation...

Jim

NCSS NCTS NCTE
Mitel 3300 MCD, 5000 4.0, 3000

 

[lowradiation]

I've looked into the Benbria solution and found out that they no longer support the Direct Page feature on the Mitel. You can still do it but I guess it works so bad they do not want to support it.

I figure the fact that it would have to page to one group of 32 phones then another group of 32 phones and so on... the delay caused by having to record the page message then playback would be too awkward to be usable.

But checking out other manufacturers it looks like Avaya and Shoretel also only do unicast IP paging. This causes their systems and have limits on the number of phones as well. (misery loves company)

Cisco and Asterix have both unicast and multicast IP paging, but the IP phones have to support multicast (some models don't).

Sounds like it may be a hardware issue - can't just add the functionality to the 3300 and do a firmware upgrade on the phones.

I guess I will tell my customer that they are going to have to add about 20 or so overhead speakers to handle what their old phone system was able to do. Wish me luck

 

[LoopyLou]

I think I have run into sites where multicast wasn't allowed so even that is not always a solution.

I'd tell you a UDP joke but I'm afraid you won't get it. TCP jokes are the best because you always get them.

 

[lowradiation]

The switches have to support multitcast as well.
Multicast would be better than unicast - uses less bandwidth on the network - don't see why a network administrator wouldn't want that.

 

[Crowtalks]

low radiation, you said:
"The switches have to support multitcast as well. Multicast would be better than unicast - uses less bandwidth on the network - don't see why a network administrator wouldn't want that."

Not to demean anyone...but I have run into many network administrators while setting up a converged network, that don't have the faintest clue about multicasting...or POE...or QoS, etc.

Jim

"If I had known it would turn out like this, I would have became a locksmith" Albert Einstein

NCSS NCTS NCTE
Mitel 3300 4.2 basic & advanced, 5000 4.0

 

[LoopyLou]

I am constantly surprised by the lack of knowledge I encounter when working with customers IT. I was always a little intimidated by IP being and old time Telecom Tech, but have found people who should know and don't. And its not that hard to add VoIP.

I'd tell you a UDP joke but I'm afraid you won't get it. TCP jokes are the best because you always get them.