My Vendor is trying to help get IP Trunks H.323 from a BCM 3.5 to Succession 3.0. We can dial from the Meridian 3.0 to a soft phone but know talk path. ETAS is telling me we have to upgrade the BCM to 3.6 or 3.7 do to compatibility issues. My question is, are there any compatibility issues with a BCM 3.0 to Succession 3.0. Or are they blowing smoke. I am from the Meridian side and I have 6 sites set up on this gatekeeper with no problems. I do not know the BCM side at all. Thanks
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
BCM 3.5 IP Trunks to Succession 3.0
- Thread starter Latvia1
- Start date
We just brought up a BCM 400 with 3.7 and Succession 4.0, my vendor spent many hours getting this configured properly. I am planning on setting up two more BCM 400's in the next several weeks and they both have 3.6 so let me know if you definitevly have to upgrade.
- Thread starter
- #3
I have found some literature on What's new for BCM 3.5 and there were 59 questions and number on number 18, it says the following.
What does H.323 Interop Means? The bulletin said: As Voice over Ip enhancements are made on new released of Meridian 1 and Succession 100, H.323 Interoperability ensures that BCM will maintain its IP trunk compatibility with those products. To me that says it should be compatible.
What does H.323 Interop Means? The bulletin said: As Voice over Ip enhancements are made on new released of Meridian 1 and Succession 100, H.323 Interoperability ensures that BCM will maintain its IP trunk compatibility with those products. To me that says it should be compatible.
Do you have the MCDN keycodes on the BCM? That's required for IPT between the BCM and M1/CSE any time you've got the IPT software on the ITG cards.
Also, make sure your payload sizes are set to 30 ms on the ITG/sig server. The BCM runs at 30ms only until release 3.6, when you can adjust the payload sized. ITG/sig server default to 10 or 20ms, don't remember which.
In short, 3.5 will interop with CSE 3.0. Are you doing gatekeeper routing (sig server), or straight to the ITG?
Don't need to upgrade until you go to release 4.5, then the BCM's need to be at 3.7 (or so the literature says, haven't tried to prove otherwise yet).
Also, make sure your payload sizes are set to 30 ms on the ITG/sig server. The BCM runs at 30ms only until release 3.6, when you can adjust the payload sized. ITG/sig server default to 10 or 20ms, don't remember which.
In short, 3.5 will interop with CSE 3.0. Are you doing gatekeeper routing (sig server), or straight to the ITG?
Don't need to upgrade until you go to release 4.5, then the BCM's need to be at 3.7 (or so the literature says, haven't tried to prove otherwise yet).
- Thread starter
- #5
biv343 thanks for your response, I am not familiar with the BCM coming from the Meridian side, but I know our payloads were not the same. We are using a gatekeeper on the 3.0 and our alternate is on 3.0. I will check into the MCDN or is that something that is easy to check on the BCM I can VPN to the BCM. What kind of issues would the different payloads cause. I just didn't want to change them on our end, I think I have to do this to every S.S. that we have. Thanks for your input.
Different payload sizes would give you what you described - ringback, but no talk path.
On the BCM, see if you have the SL-1 keycode. That's only needed if using an SL-1 node type. If using H.323 node typel then you can get away without SL-1, if memory serves me correctly.
On the BCM, see if you have the SL-1 keycode. That's only needed if using an SL-1 node type. If using H.323 node typel then you can get away without SL-1, if memory serves me correctly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question