cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1136
Views
12
Helpful
10
Replies

Gatekeeper license limitations per platform

HumanTorch
Level 5
Level 5

I need to select an ISR rotuer as a Gatekeeper for 20 branches running CME.

I have chosen Cisco2911 with a UC (SL-29-UC-K9) and Gatekeeper (FL-GK-2911) license.

What is the limitation here as compared to chosing a 3900 series router?

I couldnt find any documentation showing the number of sessions or devices the gatekeeper can support based on the platform.

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

From SRND:

The choice of gatekeeper platform is based on the number of calls per second and the number of concurrent calls. A higher number of calls per second requires a more powerful CPU. A higher number of concurrent calls requires more memory. Select Cisco IOS routers with large memory capacity and higher performance CPUs when design requirements include high call volumes and large numbers of simultaneous calls.

For more information about gatekeeper platforms, refer to the Cisco IOS H323 Gatekeeper Data Sheet, available at

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6788/vcallcon/ps4139/data_sheet_c78_56 1921.html

Unfortunately the data sheet does not list the numbers, I remember seeing it somewhere though, you may want to open ticket with PDI if you are partner or TAC to get the numbers.

HTH,

Chris

View solution in original post

10 Replies 10

yahsiel2004
Level 7
Level 7

Please read the link below for some information which might help you.

www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6788/vcallcon/ps4139/data_sheet_c78_561921.html

Regards,

Yosh

HTH Regards, Yosh

I actually read through this. It only mentions the license SKUs for each platform. It doesnt mention any technical numbers on hardware limitation of different Gateways

yahsiel2004
Level 7
Level 7

There isn't a software limitation for the GK but you need to have sufficient hardware resources to run it. The documents states what hardware resources are required to ruin an GK IOS.

Regards,

Yosh

HTH Regards, Yosh

Hi Yosh,

So it means it makes no difference if I use a 2900 or 3900 series router in terms of a Gatekeeper?

I might as well dedicate a 2911 as it's cheaper, the license is cheaper and I don't get any benefit out of a more expensive hardware.

yahsiel2004
Level 7
Level 7

It depends on what you plan to run on the router aside from running an H323 GK IOS. If the router is not providing any PRIs or voice cards than you may not need a 3900.

Yosh

HTH Regards, Yosh

Yes, the router will be solely dedicated for Gatekeeper functionality. It wont even require PVDMs in this case.

As the customer already has a non-Cisco gateway.

yahsiel2004
Level 7
Level 7

A 3900 provides more flexibility and potential for future growth as it can hold more hardware resources. But that depends on your networks need. Below is a link for the data sheets of the 2900 and 3900 series.


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps10536/data_sheet_c78-553980_ps10537_Products_Data_Sheet.html
Regards,

Yosh

HTH Regards, Yosh

From SRND:

The choice of gatekeeper platform is based on the number of calls per second and the number of concurrent calls. A higher number of calls per second requires a more powerful CPU. A higher number of concurrent calls requires more memory. Select Cisco IOS routers with large memory capacity and higher performance CPUs when design requirements include high call volumes and large numbers of simultaneous calls.

For more information about gatekeeper platforms, refer to the Cisco IOS H323 Gatekeeper Data Sheet, available at

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6788/vcallcon/ps4139/data_sheet_c78_56 1921.html

Unfortunately the data sheet does not list the numbers, I remember seeing it somewhere though, you may want to open ticket with PDI if you are partner or TAC to get the numbers.

HTH,

Chris

Thanks for the quick answer.

yahsiel2004
Level 7
Level 7

Chris,
That was really good info. Thanks the knowledge +5

Yosh

HTH Regards, Yosh