IP Telephony what are the choices ?

[iptuser]

I'm looking into IPT project as a replacement for a 4 X (Mitel) SX2000 PABX approx 2500+ users. We are looking at Nortel, Mitel, Siemens Hicom, Cisco and Avaya as possible providers. We will be testing first up to 60 users before expanding it to 100 in our next building and then after 2 - 3years expanding it to 2500+ when we move to a further new office in the UK. After this we are looking to replace our Global PABX`s US, UK, Germany, Asia - approx. 30 offices with additional 2500+ users. Does anyone have any feelings/comments/ experiences for them.
It is important what we have good PABX features, Redundancy - campus style/Custer install with either a main server in UK and IP phones plugged into their local LAN connecting via the WAN back to out UK office or regional based servers in Asia,Germay, US etc serving their local offices. Also it is important that we have QOS across the WAN with automatic backup via the local Telco's - make before we break connection to the local Telco not just alternative routing when we hit the max. number of voice channels in our WAN link

thanks

wayne

 

[BuckWeet]

Not sure of your budget, but I'd say Cisco Backbone, with AVAYA Multivantage with the S8700 Media Servers..


AVAYA's IP suite can't be beaten when you take into consideration the fact that it has any feature you need. Whereas callmanager is very lacking..


BuckWeet

 

[iptuser]

Buckweet,

thanks, the budget isn`t an issue- thank god. One of the concerns I have with Avaya is the LPS- 8300/G700 offering. It states it can only support max. 450 users can you "piggy back" 8300`s together some of our offices are 500+ and would require full back up if our WAN link goes. Also how is the Admin. side, I can program the Mitel SX2000 , Nortel and Hicom and one of the driving force will be to make admin. easier, poss. using GUI interface rather commend lines.

wayne

 

[BuckWeet]

Well then you need to look at the S8700 Media Servers from AVAYA, these can scale up to 35,000 stations total.. You can do a central S8700 config, and have remote g700/s8300's acting as LSPs incase the WAN link fails. Call the Business partner back and tell them you need a larger config and to give you S8700..

As about the GUI, I prefer command line myself, I get really annoyed how CCM programs..

BuckWeet

 

[packetde]

Call Manager today has almost all of the enterprise PBX features that you should need. Their feature parity as very comparable to Avaya and Nortel PBXs with the 3.2 release of Call Manager. Additionally, keep in mind that Cisco is ahead when it comes to "IP Telephony" features such as being able to distribute your call management clusters across your network. Avaya requires straight fiber connections between servers which isn't very practical if you network will span buildings and locations.

Also, Avaya has no means of admission control for QOS so be careful again if you plan to go beyond a campus deployment.

http://www.packetdefense.com

- Info Security

http://www.voipreviews.com

- Voice over IP

 

[BuckWeet]

I want to support CCM as much as possible, but I still can't say that its even close to what Multivantage can do (feature wise) I hate to dog on CCM too since this is a CCM group. It has no where near the enterprise features that you need. You can't even do advanced hunt groups for god sakes. And you can't apply coverage paths to the hunt groups. The forwarding gets applied from the line that is in the hunt group that takes the call.

Every install that I've been involved with, we've had to jerry rig the heck outta CCM to make it do the funcionality that we need. Half the time we're replacing older systems that can already do alot more than what CCM can do..


Dont' get me wrong. I can't wait until CCM can be really considered an enterprise feature full system.. But until then, it shouldn't be put into that place.


BuckWeet

 

[talbotpat]

I would have to agree, although CCM has come a long, long, way in a very short time. I remember the Selsius days, and it was mucho differento than what we see in the CiscoIzed version we have today. If Cisco continues the pace they have set over the past 3 or 4 years, CallManager will pull even with Nortel and AVAYA with regard to breadth of voice features in short order. Bridged line appearances will go a long way toward making the Definity to Cisco transition smoother for existing Definity users, and I hear that is coming in the next release. AVAYA and Nortel still have light years to go when it comes to understanding data networking and cutting the cord from the TDM voice world. Personally, I would much rather be in Cisco's position.

Pat

 

[BuckWeet]

Agreed! I can't wait till they get there..

BuckWeet

 

[VOIPeng]

I also agree, but the CCM still has some releases to go before it's there. Avaya S8700 solution with G700's in LSP mode is the solid way to go today.

Maybe Cisco will get wise with the $26 Billion or so they have in cash and buy Avaya, just image I'de come into work with a smile everyday, we would have the best of both worlds.

Frank

Thank you,
VOIPEng

 

[BuckWeet]

We'd have the AVAYA tech support A-Holes supporting us still, and the Cisco Tech support that has no clue about voice still too. heh

Thats a downfall


BuckWeet

 

[njohn343]

I agree with Buckweet's assessment on Call Manager

1. command line programming is quicker and sharper than the Web Interface to Call Manager. We've found that the browser platform and version, affect whether or not it is useable.
eg : Netscape 4.79 will work from a Mac
eg : Netscape 7.0 don't work from a Mac or a PC.
eg : Internet Explorer and most other browser won't work from a Mac

2. Call Manager doesn't always warn you when you're about to do something dangerous :
eg: changing a route pattern which cuts off calls in progress

On the other hand, it often overkills, telling you to reset a phone when it is not really necessary to effect the change.

3. Group Hunt with a pilot number does not work. I'd love it if someone could tell me how to make it work. This is definitely a missing Enterprise Feature.
Group Hunt is just a lame, cascading diversion implementation.

4. There is no native method for call control using PIN numbers. Also a missing Enterprise Feature IMHO.

5. Can CCM do 'Call Back' which is one of the most useful features of a PABX ? If so, I haven't seen it in the documentation.

6. In the transition from switched PABX's the administration becomes more than twice as hard - not only do you have to learn about two PABX types, you also have the added burden of making them work harmoniously to get the Enterprise Features that the users want and expect.

7. But to be fair, Call Manager also has some thougtful features and the promise of being able to do more in the (near) future than the traditional PABX.

 

[VOIPeng]

I'de also like to commment on the administration, Cisco boosts about Web Management, which ok for the simple Telecom/Data Administrator, but for an advanced user the command line interface is where I want to be.

A perfect example is a Cisco router or Switch, how many of you even enable the web interface on these yet alone use the web interface? It just slows you down.

Although I do like the web management of the IP Phone, administration of the system should be done via a CLI.

A feature that is currently used but lacks on the CCM is the ability to run an IP Softphone in Dual connect mode, so you can get signalling and registration via IP, but the audio talk path is still via CO, this makes telecommuting a breeze without the worry of QoS on networks, which is almost impossible for Remote workers connecting via Cable or DSL.

I also wish Cisco would get in gear with 802.3af as well, I believe HP and Foundry are gaining network switch market share because of Cisco's lack to conform.

And also Cisco's overconfidence, I have seen CCM deployed on non-Cisco Switches and routers, it's a huge pain setting the VLAN's on the phones, they shouldn't assume that everyone is running a Cisco network (even though the majority are), it makes it even harder to implement on a non-Cisco environment.

Frank

Thank you,
VOIPEng

 

[scaine]

A lot of good points in there about CCMs lack of ability as a PBX especially in a mixed telephony environment.

But I'll say again, as a completely new install on Cisco infrastructure, CCM is still getting my vote. I'll admit that my company's needs are slim in the voice department - and just as well, since I'm from a data background and just got the voice dumped on me recently (by necessity). But CCM still covers the basics. The real basics - I'm not talking call coverage hunt groups... whatever they are.

Just also to disagree with njohn - if we don't do GUI's for new products coming out, we're doomed to expensive training and retraining at every new iteration of the software - for example moving from CATos to IOS. I admit that I still use the CLI for data routers and switches... but I'll never buy a PIX box because I know that Checkpoint have nailed the GUI in Firewall-1 and it p!sses all over a CLI approach in every way. Don't hate GUIs is what I'm saying - just hate the bad ones!

Finally, Call-back (a much missed feature in 3.1 and 3.2) has apparently been implemented in CM3.3. Now, if only they could nail those hunt groups and Buckweet could stop going on about them!

I have to admit, I find it interesting just how many features various people claim to be essential to their job, when at the end of the day, all I really want is call/answer, transfer, conference and voicemail. And and maybe a phone book built in to the phone. There's just too much to voice systems at times...

Scaine.

 

[iptuser]

We're visited Avaya in the UK and was impressed with it, the ability to run one 8700 processor with a back up and then have 30 + remote offices with full back up using 8300 was good. One of the issues we have identified with Cisco is their SRST. We are investigating how to install in a small office without teh need to have CM everywhere, one of the suggestions is to install only IP Phones in the branch office however the issue is with the number of IP phones which have to be highlighted as survivable unless we have a large router we are talking about only approx. 24 phones most branch offices will be bigger. Also to have any analogue capability i.e. fax involves additional gateways again being limited to a small number. One of the things I'm coming across is that people are forgetting the aim of the any IPT solution replace the existing system, it is a telephone system first and the only change from IP to TDM is the transmission, a user doesn't care that the call is delivered via IP if their call forward pick up etc does not work

 

[iptuser]

SRST- I also forgot, you need to purchase additional SRST licenses for every phone you wish to be survivable, with Avaya you have already purchased them