MGCP or H.323 implementation

[warquezho0612]

I will be implementing a CUCM in one client, I'm already focus to setup MGCP until I experience and read that

1. MGCP doesn't support caller ID on FXO ports? Is this still valid or there are now workaround on this?

2. MGCP doesn't support fractional PRI? ==> Does this mean that client needs to have the full E1 channel (30b-channel, 1d-channel) and MGCP cannot support if my client only needs like 10b-channel? I read somewhere that MGCP now supports fractional PRI? Can anybody confirm

3. When implementing H.323, there is an option in the voice-port (connection plar opx) which directs the call to a certain DN, the call is not started until the called number answers the calling number. My other question is, if there is a similar concept when implementing MGCP? There is an option in the FXO port of the MGCP gateway called "ATTENDANT DN*" which does the job much like "connection plar" without the opx command because it does forward the call to a specific DN when a call is received on the FXO port, the problem is that the FXO port automaticaly answers the call even when the called number does not answer the call yet, like the calling party is automatically connected while the called parties phone is still ringing... Are there any workaround with this in implementing MGCP gateways FXO port?

[paolo bevilacqua]

You should avoid MGCP and use H.323 for professional results. There are more limitations than you have mentioned, it is also awkward to configure, often buggy, and you will require dial-peers anyway for SRTS operation.

[gsidhu]

I agree with Paolo; some other main advantages of H323 is that that the gateway hardware is independant of version of CM; for MGCP there is a dependancy for UCM to support the gateway hardware; so an upgrade of UCM is required to support a new hardware platform.

[clileikis]

Also to add, call preservation is only available on H323.  If the MGCP gateway loses connectivity to Call Manager, all calls get dropped.

[barry]

Count me in as a member of the H.323 appreciation society.

Given the choice, H.323 every time. If you don't have a choice, try and convince people that H.323 is best anyway.

:-)

Barry

[warquezho0612]

Double post

[warquezho0612]

Guys I appreciate all your support for h.323 as this is the signalling protocol I learned and used first before mgcp, I myself support h.323.

But can you guys help me with my questions regarding mgcp? I just want to learn both protocols even though as all of you said that h.323 is much superior

Thanks!

[paolo bevilacqua]

There is little more to learn about MGCP beside that will cause trouble and frustration.

[Steven Holl]

gsidhu wrote:
for MGCP there is a dependancy for UCM to support the gateway hardware; so an upgrade of UCM is required to support a new hardware platform.

That's not true, per se.  All it really does is formulate the slot/vic/port identifier.  I can register a 2921 for PRI usage via MGCP on CUCM 4 via MGCP by selecting 2821.  It's not like the MGCP protocol that CUCM speaks to the hardware is changing any.  MGCP is MGCP regardless of the chassis platform.

[Steven Holl]

If it were me turning up a new site these days, I'd do SIP over H.323 generally, unless something specific steers otherwise.  More emphasis on features/support going forward are with SIP.

MGCP still has many advantages--you can't just say H.323 is better in a blanket statement because it all depends on application, design, business requirements, etc.  Centralized dial plan, endpoint specificity @ CUCM, and some QSIG features are reasons why many choose MGCP over SIP/H.323.

Most people prefer troubleshooting SIP over H.323, too.

This is an old link, but has some points to consider:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk1077/technologies_tech_note09186a00806fedbe.shtml

[sumimanc]

Hi warquezho0612

H323 is much better then MGCP.It supports NFAS which MGCP does not support .

Now to answer your questions

1) Fractional PRI: Yes it is possible to busy out a certain channel manipulating the service parameter on the call manager

I can answer in detail but this has already been answered in another thread

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3348263#3348263

2) caller id on MGCP FXO :

you need a min ver of 8.0 on cucm and minimum IOS release

please check this bug

CSCea49474  and the forum thread

https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/298970

Only advantage of MGCP over H.323 is call survivability and easy to configure .

But still you would have to create the dial-peers for SRST, so y not configure the dial-pers in the first place

HTH

Don't forget to rate if you find this information useful.

Regards,

Sumit

[warquezho0612]

@summit

Thanks for the info, how about my number 3 question?

[Steven Holl]

There is an option in the FXO port of the MGCP gateway called "ATTENDANT DN*" which does the job much like "connection plar" without the opx
 command because it does forward the call to a specific DN when a call 
is received on the FXO port, the problem is that the FXO port 
automaticaly answers the call even when the called number does not 
answer the call yet, like the calling party is automatically connected 
while the called parties phone is still ringing... Are there any 
workaround with this in implementing MGCP gateways FXO port?

I don't know of a way to do an OPX style PLAR with MGCP FXO.