T1 CAS CONNECTION TO NON DCHNL NORTEL

[DSSTCO]

We cannot install a Dchannel card in our Nortel 11C.
It needs big bucks hadrware and software upgrades. We don't care about caller ID etc.
The PBX is configured with everything necessary to connect to call manager. The CISCO side of the connection is a port on a 6608 blade in a 6509.
We need to connect NON-Dchannel which I have been told means non PRI. Need to use T1 CAS. Can't seem to locate CAS as a device protocol in CCM. Gateway type of VOIP T1 was selected in CCM. Anybody have suggestions?
Status light on the 6608 port stay RED.
Thanks
Doug

 

[BuckWeet]

with a 6608 blade its all selected through CCM

when creating your gateway you need to select, ISDN or T1 CAS..

so delete your current gateway, then make a new one..


BuckWeet

 

[DSSTCO]

We do not literaly see "T1 CAS" in the Gateway setup.
CISCO rep said VOIP T1 in the CCM Gateway and T1 without PRI in the CCM Device Protocl implies CAS.
We were on the right track but wasted lots of time trying to locate a pull down selection for T1 CAS in CCM.
Thank you for your response.

 

[BuckWeet]

You select Digital Access T1 on the gateway creation page.. It doesn't say "CAS" (so thats my mistake) but it says T1.. Just like I referred to...

T1 and PRI are totally different voice technologies. T1 is an analog solution, whereas PRI is digital.

T1 uses DTMF signaling, PRI uses signaling via the D Channel.

 

[DSSTCO]

It was not a mistake; a CISCO rep also said I would see T1 CAS as a selection. Now "maybe the selections are different between releases!".
Now that the CISCO side is looking better I have to fall back to Nortel to investigate ERR624. I thought the 11C
config was finished.
Thanks

 

[computerhighguy]

Just curious, what version of call manager are you running?

 

[DSSTCO]

CM 3.3.3 running on a CISCO 7750 chassis.

 

[BuckWeet]

Why are you running a 6509, with a 6608 blade and using an ICS???

thats like using the 6500 with a 1700 router when you compare it to data...


BuckWeet

 

[BuckWeet]

Not to mention that ICS's have been EOL'ed...

 

[DSSTCO]

Are you asking why we didn't go with the MRP300?
We have a number of empty slots in the ICS.
We only need one slot on the 6608, but is nice to have a spare. A year and a half after an intergrator / vendor proposed this I just don't recall the justification.
If this is not what you are refering to, what would you have recommended?
At this stage I would have prefered not to go with the ICS at all.
Thanks

 

[DSSTCO]

Are you asking why we didn't go with the MRP300?
We have a number of empty slots in the ICS.
We only need one port on the 6608, but is nice to have a spare; plus we lose a slot in the 6509 A year and a half after an intergrator / vendor proposed this I just don't recall the justification.
If this is not what you are refering to, what would you have recommended?
At this stage I would have prefered not to go with the ICS at all.
Thanks

 

[BuckWeet]

Nah, what i was referring to, if this is a new install, the ICS is an EOL'ed product, and will have CallManager 4.0, then its done..

Also, the ICS just isn't the same level of hardware in my mind that a 6500 is.. If you're willing to spend the money on a 6500, then why not invest into the MCS7835s, which has built in redundancy..


BuckWeet