-
1
- #1
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 SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Voice over IP 5
- Thread starter MBH
- Start date
I don't know if I would call it a "good" solution, but it may work. If the AS5300 is equipped with the ability to do E1 CAS, then a channel bank should work.
But since you mention PRI, I would guess that the E1 can only be PRI, in which case I believe that you will have to go to a multiplexer.
Why are you trying to do this? Too many A/D conversions make for noisy telephone calls. And if you are doing compression on the IP leg of the call, it will only get worse. Better to suck up the cost of the PRI and provide intelligible transmission circuits.
pansophic
But since you mention PRI, I would guess that the E1 can only be PRI, in which case I believe that you will have to go to a multiplexer.
Why are you trying to do this? Too many A/D conversions make for noisy telephone calls. And if you are doing compression on the IP leg of the call, it will only get worse. Better to suck up the cost of the PRI and provide intelligible transmission circuits.
pansophic
galwayphoneguy
Technical User
We've got Lucent Definity G3 using Cisco 3810's and VoIP to another site over leased line - 4 channels, 64k, appalling quality. We've had both Lucent and the network people in doing everything from replacing hardware to pulling new copper, and still the quality is crap.
One thing I did notice, though, is that the installer decided we no longer need a D-channel and the Ciso 2500 which was in the original proposal at the main site, and they're adamant it was superfluous anyway. Either way, I'm not a happy bunny.
Any suggestions on what compression you'd recommend for a similar app?
One thing I did notice, though, is that the installer decided we no longer need a D-channel and the Ciso 2500 which was in the original proposal at the main site, and they're adamant it was superfluous anyway. Either way, I'm not a happy bunny.
Any suggestions on what compression you'd recommend for a similar app?
Hi Galwayphoneguy
You should have a superb reception with 4 x 64k channels. Let us know how you are connecting to the cisco stuff via the G3 and if possible a list of trunk parameters, DS1 and route patterns. I'll check it out for you.
You should have a superb reception with 4 x 64k channels. Let us know how you are connecting to the cisco stuff via the G3 and if possible a list of trunk parameters, DS1 and route patterns. I'll check it out for you.
We have recently installed a 3com NBX voip PBX.
It works weell, except that we have not been able to
"program" the user programmable keys on each set.
The documentation seems to imply that software on
a workstation can do that. We have experienced trouble
installing the software, so I need to know which
piece of software is needed for the programmable buttons.
The pcXset seems to replace the telephone with a
"soft" telephone. Is it also the program to implement
"programmable" buttons on a physical phone?
It works weell, except that we have not been able to
"program" the user programmable keys on each set.
The documentation seems to imply that software on
a workstation can do that. We have experienced trouble
installing the software, so I need to know which
piece of software is needed for the programmable buttons.
The pcXset seems to replace the telephone with a
"soft" telephone. Is it also the program to implement
"programmable" buttons on a physical phone?
We looked at VoIP and frankly can't justify the cost. The ROI would be over 4+ years, and in our company that's 2 years too long.
While we propeller heads giggle with glee about watts & slots, bells & whistles, the fact remains if we can't prove an ROI in a predetermined timefram, it don't matter who has the more scalable product.
While we propeller heads giggle with glee about watts & slots, bells & whistles, the fact remains if we can't prove an ROI in a predetermined timefram, it don't matter who has the more scalable product.
Nice comment, campyracr. This is exactly what I'm investigating for convergence at my site. I have another question that I haven't seen here. If I have 30-40 locations, do I have to use the same carrier at all locations for a VOIP solution?
thanks in advance.
thanks in advance.
mattKnight
Programmer
> If I have 30-40 locations, do I have to use the same carrier at all locations for a VOIP solution?
I don't see why, but you might get a better deal if you do. However, one possible advantage (dpending on viewpoint) is be able to concentrate your trunks in maybe 3 or 4 locations and use VOIP to route calls intelligently to the most advantageous CO trunk.
However, in the UK, all national calls are charged at the same rate so this isn't a big issue. I assume you are based in the USA
Take Care
Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
I don't see why, but you might get a better deal if you do. However, one possible advantage (dpending on viewpoint) is be able to concentrate your trunks in maybe 3 or 4 locations and use VOIP to route calls intelligently to the most advantageous CO trunk.
However, in the UK, all national calls are charged at the same rate so this isn't a big issue. I assume you are based in the USA
Take Care
Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Our company is doing it with Nortel, Avaya & Cisco. The biggest problem with Cisco Call manager is its lack of telephony features. Avaya appears to be the best of the 3, but its often like comparing apples & oranges.
Paul Beddows
Avaya Implementation
Telus
Vancouver, Canada
E-mail via
Paul Beddows
Avaya Implementation
Telus
Vancouver, Canada
E-mail via
Oh and callmanager runs on windows, requires an insane amount of patching, is a nightmare to install...
How about this:
I am looking to propose a VoIP solution next month, using either a gateway solution (I have 83 Nortel Option 11's and an 81C, not to mention 32 Norstars), or a full rip and replace solution. I tried this using the Nortel ITG trunk technology in 2000 with poor results. Not the call quality or WAN, simply the way Nortel did NOT do Call Modification and Path Replacement. We found this out after project approval and six sites installed. We also fought with Nortel for six months before they admitted it was a software issue (I digress, sorry). Five years later we were not happy with the Nortel solution or roadmap, and Avaya did not do well in the cost area for a gateway, so we focused on Cisco and Mitel.
I can say Cisco integrates without issue to the Nortel using Q.SIG trunks to the router. Makes a gateway solution very easy to cost justify. Mitel had some issues on the Q.SIG side, so is proposing a rip and replace. Cisco is also proposing this solution in addition to the gateway option.
Now, I am a big believer in VoIP, especially as a trunk replacement option. I know ROI in a gateway solution is about 14 months, where a full replacement is closer to 36. I see the benefits of doing both, but how do you sell management on a cost that is almost triple the gateway solution without additional savings. Are there some soft dollar measures some of you have seen or used before? Mobility is high on my list, but that only gets me so far. Any others? Also, I see a lot of Cisco (pro and con) here, but no Mitel; why? Is there something I have not seen that should keep them out of a discussion like this?
One final note I will add is the feature argument against any vendor just does not hold water in a large forum. Yes, Nortel and Avaya have well over 200 features, but which 20 are you using? Feature availability only applies if the feature YOU need is not supported. Why would I care is six party group intercom is not supported on Nortel or Cisco or Avaya if I never use or need that feature? Make a list of the features you use and do the comparisons on that list ONLY. If one is missing, then ask how this impacts my solution, as well as ask if you really need it. I admit there are two that Cisco does not support that we use, but I also found we don't use them the way they are designed, and we DON'T need them, so no big deal.
Looking forward to more discussion,
Scott M.
I am looking to propose a VoIP solution next month, using either a gateway solution (I have 83 Nortel Option 11's and an 81C, not to mention 32 Norstars), or a full rip and replace solution. I tried this using the Nortel ITG trunk technology in 2000 with poor results. Not the call quality or WAN, simply the way Nortel did NOT do Call Modification and Path Replacement. We found this out after project approval and six sites installed. We also fought with Nortel for six months before they admitted it was a software issue (I digress, sorry). Five years later we were not happy with the Nortel solution or roadmap, and Avaya did not do well in the cost area for a gateway, so we focused on Cisco and Mitel.
I can say Cisco integrates without issue to the Nortel using Q.SIG trunks to the router. Makes a gateway solution very easy to cost justify. Mitel had some issues on the Q.SIG side, so is proposing a rip and replace. Cisco is also proposing this solution in addition to the gateway option.
Now, I am a big believer in VoIP, especially as a trunk replacement option. I know ROI in a gateway solution is about 14 months, where a full replacement is closer to 36. I see the benefits of doing both, but how do you sell management on a cost that is almost triple the gateway solution without additional savings. Are there some soft dollar measures some of you have seen or used before? Mobility is high on my list, but that only gets me so far. Any others? Also, I see a lot of Cisco (pro and con) here, but no Mitel; why? Is there something I have not seen that should keep them out of a discussion like this?
One final note I will add is the feature argument against any vendor just does not hold water in a large forum. Yes, Nortel and Avaya have well over 200 features, but which 20 are you using? Feature availability only applies if the feature YOU need is not supported. Why would I care is six party group intercom is not supported on Nortel or Cisco or Avaya if I never use or need that feature? Make a list of the features you use and do the comparisons on that list ONLY. If one is missing, then ask how this impacts my solution, as well as ask if you really need it. I admit there are two that Cisco does not support that we use, but I also found we don't use them the way they are designed, and we DON'T need them, so no big deal.
Looking forward to more discussion,
Scott M.
Bottom line,
Stay away from a windows based system! Cisco has even anounced they are moving away from Winsows, and they know it's failings well. Go with a hybrid that uses traditional telephone infratructure, independent of your metwork, other systems can not compete with the reliability this offers.
Stay away from a windows based system! Cisco has even anounced they are moving away from Winsows, and they know it's failings well. Go with a hybrid that uses traditional telephone infratructure, independent of your metwork, other systems can not compete with the reliability this offers.
a hybird nortel/cisco solution works for me, a forklift upgrade(?) to cisco would cost millions, cisco is the name in data networking but new kids with voice. nortel voip is insane as to the bandwidth requirements on the wan side, if cost matters, that has to be a major factor.. my 81c has been providing dt without a glitch for 18 months, the last restart was an upgrade, the next restart will be another upgrade... the thing i can't get used to with any server based solution.. when it doesn't work, reboot and load the service pack.. i have worked cisco, default gateway was right, one ip (a city) was not reachable, boot the router, worked for a week or two, same problem. cisco's solution, build a default route to that exact ip. all traffic was routed out the same port, but add one network on a default route... the point being, they need bugs like that fixed, voice is not the same as data files, download a page, it takes 2 sec, next time it takes 4, no big deal, turn a router off and another router takes over so fast no one knows.. voice has a problem of not doing that.. two seconds longer or changing routes in the middle of a call is not an option... i will stay with legacy solutions until i find a customer that thinks 90 percent service is worth saving a dime.. voip trunking is ready for market, the lan side, if you have the support structure in house, roll the dice
john poole
bellsouth business
columbia,sc
john poole
bellsouth business
columbia,sc
OK, I am going to be frank, and quite blunt. Cisco sucks big time, they have a data solution for a voice problem. They dont think voice, because they are data people. The feature set is lacking, but they do have some different ways of looking at things. In say 3-5 years they will be a competitor that makes it on more than their "Cisco" name because of some of their new ways of looking at things, if they can catch up to the traditionasl voice system providors with the traditional feature sets.
Meanwhile the traditional providors have the traditional down pat, so stay where the basics are solid. I have seen traditional providors systems logs that blew my mind away. I have seen with my own eyes logs this year that said the last time they were rebooted was 2001! That was an abusive situation to the equipment, lack of service, maintanance, upgrades, and the only reason they had me out was to add a card for more exts., or it would probably still not have been rebooted. It had no performance issues reported by the customer that required any service during that time.
Could I ask anyone, HOW LONG HAS ANY CISCO VOICE PRODUCT GONE WITH NO REBOOT, THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE LOG? I BET NO LONGER THAN 2 MONTHS.
I have a friend I met in grade school, been friends my whole life, I am near 40, he is the system admin in the school system, my son is in. The city has a Cisco voice solution, he reboots it daily, and not because he likes to waste his time, he has better things to do.
Meanwhile the traditional providors have the traditional down pat, so stay where the basics are solid. I have seen traditional providors systems logs that blew my mind away. I have seen with my own eyes logs this year that said the last time they were rebooted was 2001! That was an abusive situation to the equipment, lack of service, maintanance, upgrades, and the only reason they had me out was to add a card for more exts., or it would probably still not have been rebooted. It had no performance issues reported by the customer that required any service during that time.
Could I ask anyone, HOW LONG HAS ANY CISCO VOICE PRODUCT GONE WITH NO REBOOT, THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE LOG? I BET NO LONGER THAN 2 MONTHS.
I have a friend I met in grade school, been friends my whole life, I am near 40, he is the system admin in the school system, my son is in. The city has a Cisco voice solution, he reboots it daily, and not because he likes to waste his time, he has better things to do.
aarenot,
Interesting perspective. I'll taker it with a grain of salt because you are a vendor, like me.
However I will add that Cisco thinks they know everything, but if you look at their information they often have their own definitions for things that are not quite right for anyone that knows voice.
And they are using the power of their training/certifcation system to perpetuate these mis-truths. A co-worker had to un-learn stuff to pass his Cisco exams.
This confirms you report that they are a data company trying to voice.
I have no hands on experience with their stuff, but at least their *network* stuff is at least as reliable as anyone's.
A big mess and not much hope for improvement.
Interesting perspective. I'll taker it with a grain of salt because you are a vendor, like me.
However I will add that Cisco thinks they know everything, but if you look at their information they often have their own definitions for things that are not quite right for anyone that knows voice.
And they are using the power of their training/certifcation system to perpetuate these mis-truths. A co-worker had to un-learn stuff to pass his Cisco exams.
This confirms you report that they are a data company trying to voice.
I have no hands on experience with their stuff, but at least their *network* stuff is at least as reliable as anyone's.
A big mess and not much hope for improvement.
My profile is not totally accurate, I put in vendor when I joined, before seeing other options available. I am a system engineer/ Project manager, I install and service in my carreer, Toshiba systems from the last 15 years(certified), Avaya SMBS Partner ACS(certified)/ Merlin/Legend/ IPO(certified ACA IPO/CCC implement), ESI systems as well. I have installed over 1000 systems in my carreer, with a few other brands with lessor experience with those. I have also worked with the (hardware only) on other systems, wiring and cut overs as a subcontractor.
I am not trying to sell anything here, and my skills and experience do not lock me in to any single factories product, so I just call them like I see them. I would not sell family a Cisco phone system, even if they were getting the money to buy it for free. Windows based systems are going to see down time due to being windows, which is a source of down time above and beyond any risk with non-windows systems.
I am not trying to sell anything here, and my skills and experience do not lock me in to any single factories product, so I just call them like I see them. I would not sell family a Cisco phone system, even if they were getting the money to buy it for free. Windows based systems are going to see down time due to being windows, which is a source of down time above and beyond any risk with non-windows systems.
Very true, but don't you think that until there is a more reliable OS, people will start to reduce their requirements of 5 9's for feature functionality? I can already see the shift in just a few product demo's myself and a few exec's have been in. Show them a Cisco 7970, and they are in awe of the ability of the phone. Even my data engineer is in awe of the Call Manager interface. Does any of that replace the up time of the system? NO, but it does start to sway those responsible to determine the trade-offs.
I am not an advocate of IP to the desktop, although I do see many places in my organization where it would be a benefit. My primary focus is on the bottom line, and cost savings really come from replacing TDM connectivity on the trunk side (at least in my environment). I know several companies that would fight each other for a free Cisco solution, and would take downtime as a part of (in their opinion) a better overall communications solution. Pluses vs. minuses.
The business usually gets what the business wants. We can only do what we can to show where those decisions may lead and how to minimize the issues. Not pretty, not perfect, but certainly possible.
Again, only my $.02.
Scott M.
I am not an advocate of IP to the desktop, although I do see many places in my organization where it would be a benefit. My primary focus is on the bottom line, and cost savings really come from replacing TDM connectivity on the trunk side (at least in my environment). I know several companies that would fight each other for a free Cisco solution, and would take downtime as a part of (in their opinion) a better overall communications solution. Pluses vs. minuses.
The business usually gets what the business wants. We can only do what we can to show where those decisions may lead and how to minimize the issues. Not pretty, not perfect, but certainly possible.
Again, only my $.02.
Scott M.
Hey forums are for opinion, thanks for yours. As long as the friends you know who would fight over a Cisco solution realize that it can take days, or longer to reformat, and reload OS and software on an entire network(including servers). Which I have seen happen from some isco products being the weak link that caused entire networks to be compromised. With both implemented viri protection software providor support personel said was the only way to restore the network. Hey the phone switch was easy to fix though, and didn't take much time at all, wipe the drives, reload OS, reload software, load config from the back up, and reboot the phone system(which they rebooted every day anyway to try to make it more stable).
If that is an acceptable risk, in their business, the I say, go for it.
If that is an acceptable risk, in their business, the I say, go for it.
One thing that worries me about these discussions are how badly peoples data and network infrastructures are set up!
We've started to replace our network infrastructure as it was getting long in the tooth. It was at this point we realised the last time we rebooted our core switches was over 4 years ago. I make that about a lot better than 5 9's!
The reason we are changing? Resiliance.
I can't believe that people are installing VoIP with no fault tolerance. Once completed, if a LAN / MAN / WAN link fails, no problem, it instantlly reroutes another way, it's not rocket science! The softswitch is cleaver enough to see the trunks are down and reroute.
Server dies, a few days to rebuild? Sack the server team ! Tell then to invest in a decent set up! If our servers were down after death for more than a few hours, people would be very scared of not keeping there jobs.
If you go into VoIP half prepared, then expect problems.
After all would you run ISDN lines strung over a couple of ligt fittings into a NTE gaffer taped to the wall. Thought not. If you put in poor infrastructure, expect poor results.
People complain about upgrading cost on the network. Look at the upsides, the network becomes more reliable, QoS means better service for peoples apps (it doesn't just have to be VoIP and Data split. Split Data down further so that critical services get higher priority).
I guess the summary of this is if you stick VoIP on a crap infrastructure you'll get crap results.
Stu.
PS most of our downtime is due to ISDN failures at the exchange end, not our servers, but that a Whole new story
:-(
Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004
We've started to replace our network infrastructure as it was getting long in the tooth. It was at this point we realised the last time we rebooted our core switches was over 4 years ago. I make that about a lot better than 5 9's!
The reason we are changing? Resiliance.
I can't believe that people are installing VoIP with no fault tolerance. Once completed, if a LAN / MAN / WAN link fails, no problem, it instantlly reroutes another way, it's not rocket science! The softswitch is cleaver enough to see the trunks are down and reroute.
Server dies, a few days to rebuild? Sack the server team ! Tell then to invest in a decent set up! If our servers were down after death for more than a few hours, people would be very scared of not keeping there jobs.
If you go into VoIP half prepared, then expect problems.
After all would you run ISDN lines strung over a couple of ligt fittings into a NTE gaffer taped to the wall. Thought not. If you put in poor infrastructure, expect poor results.
People complain about upgrading cost on the network. Look at the upsides, the network becomes more reliable, QoS means better service for peoples apps (it doesn't just have to be VoIP and Data split. Split Data down further so that critical services get higher priority).
I guess the summary of this is if you stick VoIP on a crap infrastructure you'll get crap results.
Stu.
PS most of our downtime is due to ISDN failures at the exchange end, not our servers, but that a Whole new story
:-(
Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004
Excellent point on both counts. I certainly agree that any solution that takes more than a minute or two to restore will be hard to deal with once a failure occurs. I have discussions with my VP all the time where I say people view dial tone as a "God-given right", and that does not always get through. People are used to rebooting PC's, but the phone is a different story. If I had my way, IP PBX's would be forced to run on VXWorks before they could be marketed, but I know that will never happen. Cisco is moving in that direction, with a Linux version due out soon, hopefully Version 5. The real question I was hoping to get answered is: at what point does the "cool" features override the reliance of the system? I am not sure it ever does, but many times I don't get to make that call.
How many exec's have seen the latest Cisco commercial where the guy is looking to buy stuff for his business, and the analyst is sitting next to him saying "frivilous" (sp?) to everything until the Cisco IP phone is put on the desk? Then they both say, "Cool." My concern is when that exec comes in the next day and says "I want that on my desk next week", we have to be able to counter that with the exact issues brought up here.
The network is another place where very few consider its importance; I know we fell short on that five years ago. Again, how do you sell that before you go live on any IP solution? The data runs just fine over it today, so most exec's see little reason to make changes; put voice on it, then it becomes a support issue, and we all scramble to explain the difference between TCP and UDP traffic. (Not a great way to impress the higher ups; starting in with acronyms).
I am really searching for answers, or at least real experience with how to address the questions and concerns. I am off to my Mitel VoIP demo with my VP. Hope it goes well, but not too well.
Scott M.
How many exec's have seen the latest Cisco commercial where the guy is looking to buy stuff for his business, and the analyst is sitting next to him saying "frivilous" (sp?) to everything until the Cisco IP phone is put on the desk? Then they both say, "Cool." My concern is when that exec comes in the next day and says "I want that on my desk next week", we have to be able to counter that with the exact issues brought up here.
The network is another place where very few consider its importance; I know we fell short on that five years ago. Again, how do you sell that before you go live on any IP solution? The data runs just fine over it today, so most exec's see little reason to make changes; put voice on it, then it becomes a support issue, and we all scramble to explain the difference between TCP and UDP traffic. (Not a great way to impress the higher ups; starting in with acronyms).
I am really searching for answers, or at least real experience with how to address the questions and concerns. I am off to my Mitel VoIP demo with my VP. Hope it goes well, but not too well.
Scott M.
It also depends on what you mean by VoIP. IP trunks or IP telephony.
IMHO IP telephony is overpriced. I wouldn't touch a system that is propriatry. If it doesn't support open standards (h323 or SIP), then walk away. Do you want to be paying $/£400 for an handset when you'll get open ones for a 1/4 of the cost? The costs you'll save in office moves, infratructure etc, will be completely overridden by the costs of the darn phones.
I wouldn't consider IP trunks unless yur network is up to it. The only reason we're rolling it out, is because it going in anyway, not vice versa. The two are working together, it was never a case of "get a new network because we want VoIP", that would be madness.
Stu..
Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004
IMHO IP telephony is overpriced. I wouldn't touch a system that is propriatry. If it doesn't support open standards (h323 or SIP), then walk away. Do you want to be paying $/£400 for an handset when you'll get open ones for a 1/4 of the cost? The costs you'll save in office moves, infratructure etc, will be completely overridden by the costs of the darn phones.
I wouldn't consider IP trunks unless yur network is up to it. The only reason we're rolling it out, is because it going in anyway, not vice versa. The two are working together, it was never a case of "get a new network because we want VoIP", that would be madness.
Stu..
Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question