Paolo,
>use H.323, you will be in fully supported situation, and enjoy more features and berter stability
You hit a nerve on this one. I must respectfully disagree.
H.323 does have some feature support that MGCP does not. HOWEVER, if you use H.323 you LOSE the ability to monitor the gateway as part of an end to end system via RTMT.
Any decision on what protocol you use on a gateway needs to consider (1) the technical requirements of the installation, (2) the ability of the customer to monitor and remediate issues on their equipment.
Many customers I've worked with do not have sophisticated systems to monitor what's going on in the network, and end up using a combination of multiple tools to do their job. The tools that do everything are priced so high that very few companies can afford them. As such, RTMT is a big part of many of these systems.
As such, I would submit that you should use H.323 when appropriate. If there are link stability issues back to CUCM, if you need a feature that doesn't exist in MGCP (like NFAS for instance), then definately use H323. If you need end to end monitoring via RTMT, you need MGCP.
I think that as engineers we do an extreme disservice to our customers by telling them "H323 is best". The answer should always be qualified based on the needs of the customer, and not the prejudices of the engineer.
My two cents worth. I respect you a lot Paolo, and have learned quite a bit from following your posts over the years. I just disagree on this point with you (respectfully though).
Cliff
