VG224 SCCP MGCP 1

[libellis]

Must VG224 control be entirely SCCP or MGCP, or can it be programmed as SCCP or MGCP on a per port basis (i.e. mixture of SCCP and MGCP ports)?

 

[whykap]

You can do both on a per port basis, fully supported

 

[libellis]

Thank you! Once again.

 

[libellis]

Since both MGCP and SCCP are supported on a per port basis are the following conclusions correct?

1. Put Fax (T.38) on MGCP ports.

2. Put analog phones on SCCP ports if features are required.

3. Put the whole gateway on MGCP if a limited set of analog phone features is acceptable.

4. Put the whole gateway on MGCP if Fallback to MGCP on the local router/gateway is required for survivability of both Fax and analog phones (along with SRST for IP phones).

 

[whykap]

you can do srst with sccp as well. However your VG224 is NOT going to support SRST for the ip phones. You will need an ISR to do so.

 

[libellis]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know that IP phones have nothing to do with the VG224 - it was just an added comment that the ISR would also be running SRST to handle the IP phones.

The main point of #4 was to confirm that for both Fax (T.38) and analog phone survivability on the VG224, we would have to use MGCP rather than SCCP. I assume that #1 - #3 are correct.

 

[whykap]

I get you.
You can have SRST on sccp ports as well.

 

[libellis]

This is even better - seems that we can have our cake and eat it too. If I understand you correctly, in a survivable scenario MGCP ports on the VG224 would be controlled by Fallback to MGCP on the ISR, and SCCP ports would be under SRST control on the ISR.
No global decision about all ports on the VG224 has to be made with regard to MGCP or SCCP as I was assuming in #4.

 

[whykap]

Different SRST config for MGCP vs SCCP. You'll need to have both on the VGs you are using both protocols.