Franking Machine

[Curtis Lewis]

Hi,

We have taken over a managed office space that use a cisco call manager 6.x.x and unity system. I'm alittle confused with what has been setup for the franking mahcines, the previous company had tried to setup a directory number on the call server and run the franking machines through a cisco ATA. I was wondering if someone could clarify if this is possible, as I though the ATA would only do Fax-pass through? I'm guessing the franking machines need an analouge line seperate to this?

They have cisco ATA 186.

Thanks,

Curtis.

[Rob Huffman]

Hi Curtis,

This scenario is quite possible. We run some of the

Franking machines on VG248 ports which are really

just the "big brother" to the ATA's.

They both provide Analog FXS ports which should work

the way you need

Cheers!

Rob

"I don't know how, I don't know when
But you and I will meet again " 

- Tom Petty

[Gordon Ross]

Yes, you can use franking machines on ATA 186s (and VG224s)

Just be careful, though: Franking machines (& PDQ) machines have the worst fax/modem chipsets ever made inside them. They are just so darn temperamental.

You may have to force the modem speed to 28.8 (or lower) for the thing to work properly. Many of these devices assume 56K modem speeds and are reluctant to down-speed.

GTG

[Aaron Harrison]

In general the ATAs are a bit naff for anythign other than a low speed fax - V224/248/202/204s are better.

The best idea would be to look at getting an Internet-connected franking machine! The office I'm installing today has one though they were expecting and have provisioned analogue connectivity...

Aaron

[Gordon Ross]

Aaron Harrison wrote:
In general the ATAs are a bit naff for anythign other than a low speed fax - V224/248/202/204s are better.

We've got a fair amount of VG224s and ATA 186/7s. We've not noticed any performance difference between ATAs and VGs. The only differences are that VGs are easier to manage and more dense - but a heck of a lot more expensive than ATAs

We bought a VG202 to compare against an ATA, and we failed to find any difference. I can't see why people would buy VG202/4s over an ATA.

GTG

[Curtis Lewis]

HI, Thanks for the respons, got caught off site yesterday but managed to swing by the office and plug their franking machine into the second phone line port on the ATA 186 (phone line one is being used by the fax which is working away quite happily).

Silly question but I've setup a new directory number for the second phone port on the ATA, but when I plug the franking machine into it and it attempts to dial out it reports no dial tone. As it's dialing an 0845 number automatically, is there anyway to prefix a 9 (like the users must do in order to start sending a fax?

Apologies for the questions if they seem obvious.

I have suggested an internet connected franking machine, but the tenants are reluctant to buy a new device (go figure).

Thanks for the help.

Curtis.

[Gordon Ross · Accepted solution]

Translation pattern ?

GTG

[barry · Accepted solution]

+5 for Gordon; translation pattern on CUCM will let you prefix a 9.

Also, are you sure that the 2nd port on the ATA is registered with CUCM? If its not, you won't get dial tone.To test, you could just try plugging in an analog handset and dialling an internal extension number.

Best of luck. Franking machines are awful, awful devices. I've lost count of the hours and days I've spent trying to get them working. My best success rate is directly attaching them 2800/2900 ISR FXS ports.

Barry Hesk

Intrinsic Network Solutions

[Gordon Ross]

barry@nettitude.uk.com wrote:
My best success rate is directly attaching them 2800/2900 ISR FXS ports.

Hmm, interesting thought. Are the connections more reliable or higher speed ? Is this just for connections that bounce straight out the same box (and hence don't hit ethernet) via ISDN ?

GTG

[barry]

Hi Gordon

More reliable. 99.9% it's because with an FXS port on the same gateway as the PRI there's no IP encapsulation involved.

I had a helluva job a couple of months ago even getting one to go out through a 2nd 2900 gateway with the PRI over simple H.323. Eventually got it working after playing with relay, passthrough, codecs and all manner of fun stuff. I'm not 100% certain what eventually fixed it, but as it was working I quickly wrote the configs and left :-)

Barry Hesk

Intrinsic Network Solutions

[Curtis Lewis]

Hi,

I flattened the ATA and after a bit of tinkering both lines 1 and 2 registered with the Call manager (was worried it was a little differetn on the 186 with the shitfed mac address, they are picking up the two directory numbers as normal and I have updated my translation profile with the 0845 number the franking machine dials (prefix the 9 on outgoing).
Fingers crossed, I have someone testing it on site at the moment. I 'll let you all know how it goes.

Thanks,

Curtis.

[Gordon Ross]

Curtis Lewis wrote:
I flattened the ATA

Ahhh.. I'm wondering if you'd disabled the second port on the ATA itself and forgot to re-enable it. (There's a bug with 186's that if you don't disable an unused second port, the ATA reboots every few minutes)

Configuring the second port in CUCM is not enough to re-enable the port on the ATA itself.

GTG

[Curtis Lewis]

Hi Gordon,

Hmm you might be right, I take it that changing the 0 to a . in the SID1 and SID2 fields of the SCCP settings on the ATA though?

Thanks,

Curtis.