MGCP vs. H.323 vs. SIP

[shane.oconnell]

Hi -

I am looking for information on comparing all three gateway protocols above, can anyone suggest a link to a document on these or alternatively share your views on which you think is best and why?

Thanks

[Marwan ALshawi]

Simply mgcp provide you with centralized dislplan configuration using cucm

While h323 you have to configure the dial plan or at least basic call routing in the gateway level also it provide you with more digit manipulation flexibility

SIP just like H323 interns of configuring call routing and dial peers on the gateway

However sip is more useful if you ate using sip trunk pstn provider, integration voice applications and other systems such ad video that used name dialing

Also know as sip uri like name@sipdomain.com

HTH

If helpful rate

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Brian Lavallee]

My two cents...

Whenever possible, MGCP is the way to go. It's a mature technology for PSTN connectivity. It does lack some of the flexibility of other protocols, but that also adds to it's stability.

MGCP allows the Call Agent (CUCM, Asterisk, etc) to take FULL control of the PSTN connection. It's a master/slave relationship, meaning you can NOT use the PSTN connection for other devices.

If you're deploying a simple "Call Agent <> Gateway <> PSTN" network, then use MGCP.

If you need multiple Call Agents to access the same PSTN connection, it's NOT the solution you need.

Session based protocols are more suited for multiple Call Agents, allowing ANY device to set-up a call on the PSTN connection.

Brian

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Marwan ALshawi]

Hi Brian

I think it's hard to say best one here as all it depends on the needs and requirements then you can find which one the best to your need based on the capabilities of each protocol

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[William Bell]

Shane,

Take a look at this thread:

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3309763#3309763

HTH.

Regards,

Bill

[Marwan ALshawi]

I totally agree wil Bill link, also as I mentioned above the best always based on your needs and requirements simple example if you have a SIP provider then MGCP is not the best option as you might find it best to go SIP end to end from CUCM to the provider

HTH

[robloeber]

I have to disagree with the people who say MGCP is the way to go.  The only place MGCP is really beneficial, IMHO, is when using VG224 analog gateways.  Cisco has openly stated they are not spending any more dollars into the R&D of MGCP. 

Depending on the applicaiton I would recommend exploring SIP first and if that doesnt meet your needs try H.323.

[William Bell]

Rob,

I can see where you are coming from. My opinion is one should take the time to understand the requirements before choosing a protocol. I think of these protocols as tools.  There are plenty of protocols that are around today which don't get further development time -- and they are just fine the way they are. MGCP stacks, especially on IOS gateways, are pretty robust.

So, my advice to the OP is to understand your requirements first and then determine which tool fits your need. My opinion on what criteria should be applied is still basically the same as posted in the thread I referenced earlier. The only additional input I would have (since that thread was h323 vs. mgcp) is around SIP.

I recommend SIP when interfacing directly with all call processing systems. Depending on the system, you may go direct (i.e. CUCM to VCS) or you can insert a border element (CUBE). The latter is good for normalization and security purposes. When integrating with a carrier-based SIP trunk, then I definitely prefer SIP from the gateway to the border element or session border controller (if we are being more agnostic). CUBE, Acme Packet, etc.

If the carrier is giving me PRI, I am not running SIP on the voice gateways. At least that is my current opinion. As time moves forward, I reserve the right to change my mind ;-)

Last note, these are just opinions from folks who have had a certain set of successes and failures. Take them as data points only. Hopefully they are useful.

Regards,

Bill