[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: cisco-voip
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
From: "Matt Slaga (AM)" <matt.slaga () dimensiondata ! com>
Date: 2012-07-30 15:27:25
Message-ID: 5FE225375F6E3F4493474B90BC1B94EFC3EE276625 () USISPCLEXDB01 ! na ! didata ! local
[Download RAW message or body]
Not to throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most large=
r providers can also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the locatio=
n to alleviate the additional TDM to IP conversion.
From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.ne=
ther.net] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Nate VanMaren
Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
Agreed, agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer they =
are getting a small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more importantly=
is the inbound redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so =
inbound trunksgroup redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the mo=
tivating force for the migration. We've not seen any issues with faxing or =
modems using this particular provider in the past using a PRI handoff so th=
at's really irrelevant at least in this situation. They are 2800 series rou=
ters with IP voice featureset but have you looked at the featureset upgrade=
cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY PAY THAT if the provid=
er is giving you that for free and taking on any of the potential implicati=
ons with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to me???
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org<ma=
ilto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org>> wrote:
>
> But cost being equal, I'd much rather have a traditional PRI that a SIP/P=
RI. Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems that m=
ost likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.
>
>
>
> If there is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund t=
he purchase of an SBC to do it straight to the provider? How old are these=
existing PRI gateways that they can't just be converted to CUBEs?
>
>
>
> -Nate
>
>
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.n=
ether.net> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bou=
nces@puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of Ted Nugent
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Justin Steinberg
> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE List
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?
>
>
>
> Yeah my thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no mu=
ltiplexing or anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to CUBE=
at his next hardware refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy should=
still be available although they might need to get creative on outbound if=
the D-channel is still up and the SIP is down. Thanks for the sanity check=
, now to gently break the news so his head doesn't spin off and chew out hi=
s account team.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg@gmail.com<m=
ailto:jsteinberg@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution th=
ere are a number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf relay=
, early offer /delayed offer, fax relay, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <mh@markholloway.com<mail=
to:mh@markholloway.com>> wrote:
>
> Adtran TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI =
handoffs. When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who =
needed 3 PRI's or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4=
or more PRI's to their PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the Se=
rvice Provider core. I'll caveat and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were talk=
ing to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which helps keep everything gracefully=
manageable.
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:
>
> > I received a call from a former client (I switched partners) that is mi=
grating sites over from PRI to SIP and has an arrangement with his provider=
that they will provide PRI handoffs via Adtran gateways so that he does no=
t need to purchase additional hardware or licencing. Apparently, His Cisco =
account team caught wind of this and told him this was against "Cisco Best =
Practice", that he will experience nothing but problems and needs to have C=
UBE in place and take SIP directly to CUBE, then proceeded to quote him $50=
k in upgraded routers and licensing.... This is where I got called and figu=
red before I start up the bus and start tossing people under it I would ask=
you folks to see if there was anything I might be missing here? Using the =
PRI handofffs sound reasonable to me since there does not seem to be any co=
mpelling reason I can think of to go to CUBE in his situation.
> > I've seen many clients running SIP trunks with PRI handoffs for the sam=
e reasons and to my knowledge have had zero problems.... It sounds to me li=
ke it's Cisco's Year End and someone is embellishing the truth to sell unne=
cessary gear.... Anyone else know of any issues of terminating the SIP trun=
k on an Adtran and providing a PRI handoff, assuming you don't need more th=
an the 23 channels....?
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(=
s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorize=
d review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the=
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy a=
ll copies of the original message.
>
>
itevomcid
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" \
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" \
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" \
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" \
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" \
CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 \
(filtered medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div \
class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not to \
throw additional splinters into the Cisco folks here, but most larger providers can \
also terminate a managed ACME Packet gateway at the location to alleviate the \
additional TDM to IP conversion. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p \
class=MsoNormal><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p \
class=MsoNormal><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div \
style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p \
class=MsoNormal><b><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span \
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> \
cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] <b>On \
Behalf Of </b>Ted Nugent<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:42 PM<br><b>To:</b> \
Nate VanMaren<br><b>Cc:</b> Cisco VoIPoE List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cisco-voip] SIP \
Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p \
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal \
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Agreed, \
agreed and agreed... however after speaking with the customer they are getting a \
small cost savings ( nothing really IMO) but more importantly is the inbound \
redundancy since the closest site is not on the same CO so inbound trunksgroup \
redundancy is not an option. This apparently was the motivating force for the \
migration. We've not seen any issues with faxing or modems using this particular \
provider in the past using a PRI handoff so that's really irrelevant at least in \
this situation. They are 2800 series routers with IP voice featureset but have you \
looked at the featureset upgrade cost and the cost of CUBE sessions??? WHY WOULD ANY \
PAY THAT if the provider is giving you that for free and taking on any of the \
potential implications with that on their shoulders... seem like a win win to \
me???<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Jul 29, \
2012 at 3:11 PM, Nate VanMaren <<a \
href="mailto:VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org">VanMarenNP@ldschurch.org</a>> \
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> But cost \
being equal, I’d much rather have a traditional PRI that a SIP/PRI. \
Running stuff through two encode/decode cycles and the problems that most \
likely will come with fax/modem/alarms etc.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> If there \
is plenty of cost savings switching to SIP/PRI, does that fund the purchase of an SBC \
to do it straight to the provider? How old are these existing PRI gateways that \
they can’t just be converted to CUBEs?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
-Nate<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> From: <a \
href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a> \
[mailto:<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>] \
On Behalf Of Ted Nugent<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Sent: \
Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:57 PM<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> To: \
Justin Steinberg<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Cc: Cisco VoIPoE \
List<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] SIP \
Trunk Provider PRI Handoff or CUBE?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Yeah my \
thoughts exactly... This is a pretty simple setup, 4 sites, no multiplexing or \
anything crazy like that. He's been considering going to CUBE at his next hardware \
refresh but there is no budget now. Redundancy should still be available although \
they might need to get creative on outbound if the D-channel is still up and the SIP \
is down. Thanks for the sanity check, now to gently break the news so his head \
doesn't spin off and chew out his account team.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> On Thu, \
Jul 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Justin Steinberg <<a \
href="mailto:jsteinberg@gmail.com">jsteinberg@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> I don't \
see any problem with this either. In fact, with this solution there are a \
number of issues you don't have to worry about such as dtmf relay, early offer \
/delayed offer, fax relay, etc.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> On Thu, \
Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Mark Holloway <<a \
href="mailto:mh@markholloway.com">mh@markholloway.com</a>> \
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Adtran \
TA900 Integrated Access Devices are widely deployed to SIP to PRI handoffs. \
When I worked for a carrier we deployed Adtran for customer who needed 3 PRI's \
or less to their PBX and Cisco ISR for customer who needed 4 or more PRI's to their \
PBX. Both worked well with SIP trunking into the Service Provider core. I'll caveat \
and say all Adtran/Cisco devices were talking to Acme Packet SBC's in the core which \
helps keep everything gracefully manageable.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> On Jul \
26, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ted Nugent wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> > I \
received a call from a former client (I switched partners) that is migrating sites \
over from PRI to SIP and has an arrangement with his provider that they will provide \
PRI handoffs via Adtran gateways so that he does not need to purchase additional \
hardware or licencing. Apparently, His Cisco account team caught wind of this and \
told him this was against "Cisco Best Practice", that he will experience \
nothing but problems and needs to have CUBE in place and take SIP directly to CUBE, \
then proceeded to quote him $50k in upgraded routers and licensing.... This is where \
I got called and figured before I start up the bus and start tossing people under it \
I would ask you folks to see if there was anything I might be missing here? Using the \
PRI handofffs sound reasonable to me since there does not seem to be any compelling \
reason I can think of to go to CUBE in his situation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> > I've seen many clients running SIP trunks with PRI handoffs \
for the same reasons and to my knowledge have had zero problems.... It sounds to me \
like it's Cisco's Year End and someone is embellishing the truth to sell unnecessary \
gear.... Anyone else know of any issues of terminating the SIP trunk on an Adtran and \
providing a PRI handoff, assuming you don't need more than the 23 \
channels....?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> > \
_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> > cisco-voip mailing list<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> > <a \
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> > <a \
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> cisco-voip mailing list<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> <a \
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>> <a \
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> \
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> NOTICE: \
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain \
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or \
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the \
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original \
message.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p \
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><span \
style='color:white'>itevomcid</span> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
--===============5220955083360426940==--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic