More Reease 7 Errata

[MitelInMyBlood]

Interesting to note that 3300 rls 7 software is using SX2K call control ver 37 (is this Lightware 37?)

If so, at this point the 3300 would seem to have jumped two full major stream releases ahead of the SX2K (which is still at LW34)

Another interesting anomaly, if I may. Mitel in describing their Resiliency option once stated the design was intended to allow a catastrophic loss of the primary controller without losing a call in progress. However, contrast this statement to product training documentation (Rls 7) for the "Resilient T1/E1 combo card" which states that calls in process are in fact lost if the primary controller fails.

Optional dual redundant power supplies and dual drives with RAID mirroring of the file system in the new MXe controller is a step in the right direction, but Control Resiliency is still not Control Redundancy, no matter what anyone tells you.

 

[mitelman]

but Control Resiliency is still not Control Redundancy, no matter what anyone tells you."

Amen to that. I still haven't got a reasonable answer why they have not implemented that yet after 5 years.

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

Well, if you've noticed, they also have still not announced M/D of the 2k Redundant Light although individual pieces (cards, DSUs & etc) are falling by the wayside. There still are a number of critical clients (i.e., healthcare, public safety, utility companies and military) who are going to be a hard sell. Us for one; we're a 100% -48vdc shop. They don't make a -48 DC powered 3300 and likely won't ever. I have a number of 3300s up and running but right now most are functioning as intermachine tandems for IP trunking. As for the number of IP sets deployed in our voice network, right now there's hardly any. However, that's gradually changing, just going a lot slower than I thought (or hoped) it would.

I have to admit Control Resiliency has come a very long way since the days of release 4.0 just a few short years ago and I think we're getting close, but as long as we're still knocking down TDM trunk calls between the ICP and the PSTN, we're not there yet.

Obviously we've got to work on eliminating the TDM piece of the call, at least within the PBX environment of the customer premesis. Push that piece out to the LEC and suddenly you've accomplished something.

 

[TheMitelGuy]

The Mitel 3300 will support call resilliency during a ICP failure, pending it is a IP to IP only call. Once TDM enters the picture (trunks or stations) the 3300 does not support resilliency. It's the nature of the equipment.

Once TDM (trunks and stations) enter the mix, the controllers do not have the ability to seize the TDM equipment from another controller that has failed (i.e. a controller that has taken over in the even of a failure can not say "this PRI now belongs to me"). The TDM links are hardwired to the controller, as IP phones are simply ports on a data switch (easily worked with).

The T1 Combo Module is the first of new TDM equipment coming out. What really happens is the T1 card checks to make sure the ICP is responding. If it is not it will start talking to ICP #2. In this case the T1 is physically connected to both controllers.

To my knowledge the 2K software production has come to a stand-still (no longer worked on), other then bug fixes.

FYI: Call resilliency is coming in 2007. Just wait...

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

Yes, I was aware that R&D on the 2K has ended, but please whisper. To date there's been no "formal" announcement of that fact and no one's been blathering it about in the rumor mills. I can predict with certainty what will happen in our shop the moment the 2K is officially announced M/D. My sr. I/T mgmt will seize on that announcement as once and for all hearlding the end of a 21 yr relationship w/Mitel. We've already had quite a battle on our hands just the last 3 years. Our "new" mgmt (MBA degrees only, of course) is growing more adamant literally with each passing hour that there be only ONE common voice & data infrastructure in this corporation and by everything holy it is going to be Cisco, period, with no reddress or petition from the stipulations herein laid down and presented. Continue the argument and risk getting fired!

I would not be surprised to see a full forklift replacement (over 1 megabuck just in instruments) happen within 12~18 mos. of the 2K being announced M/D. My single greatest hope right now is that I'll be eligible to retire and maybe get a job as a 'door nazi' in Sam's Club.

 

[TheMitelGuy]

I would not fear, nor would I put up with that crap. Your a good Mitel Tech - and they are not easily found.

There is no reason to drop Mitel because the 2K is not available. There is nothing (or I should say there will be NOTHING) that the 2K does that the 3300 will not - including TDM redundancy.

As for going with Cisco, I think that's stupid. Because it has CISCO on the box, everyone is going to buy it? Bah! We have customers call us all the time and say "we want Cisco." Then you know what... they call back after looking at the bottom figures on the quote and say "what else do you have that works?" My responce 10 out of 10 times is "Mitel, it's a wonderful system." Not everyone can afford Cisco. Further more, coming from a Cisco meeting yesterday, I can tell you they have new things coming out that they have copied from Mitel.

I don't believe everything Cisco says. I had a technical session yesterday and the guy teaching this stuff, OPENLY said he would not engeering products in same configurations their sales/market material states. He was an honest man. If Mitel says it works, you might have a bug, but it works! They do whatever it takes for their customers.

Cisco is a good company, don't get me wrong, but IP phone to IP phone, feature to feature, Mitel really does kick Cisco's A*S. It's just because big corporate America says they need Cisco. It's all image. Mitel, it's the real thing.

 

[MitelInMyBlood]

But you have to realize all of our old IT managers and department heads who came up through the ranks are gone. Today all we have are fellows with MBA degrees who know absolutely nothing technical about the job. All they know is "how to manage". One common architecture therefore has to be preferable to two because you can "manage" it with fewer people and deal with fewer vendors.