Using a 2900 as an MGCP gateway in CUCM 7.x

[James Hawkins]

Hi,

I have a customer with a CUCM 7.0 cluster and 2811 gateways with ISDN30 configured to use MGCP.

The gateways are to be upgraded to 2901's and CUCM is going to 9.1

The customer wants the gateways upgraded first and to keep MGCP. This is an issue as CUCM 7.0 obviously does not list the 2901 as a gateway type.

Has anyone tried using a 2901 gateway and defining it as a 2811 in CUCM? -if yes how well did it work?

[Aman Soi]

Hi James,

what is exact CUCM version u  are using?

I think it is supported from CUCM 7.1(3).

regds,

aman

[James Hawkins]

Hi Aman,

It is 7.0(2) so definitely no support for the 2900 gateways.

[Ayodeji Okanlawon]

James, simple rule of thumb is if you cant find the gateway then it is not supported. Because it is mgcp you need to use the specific gateway type. You may contact Cisco to see if they can give you a patch to enable support for the 2900 ISR routers, however I am wondering why you want to upgrade the gateway first. You should advise the customer that it cant be done that way. You need to upgrade the core call routing component first and then the gateway follows. The easiest way is tell them its no supported.

Please rate all useful posts

"opportunity is a haughty goddess who waste no time with those who are unprepared"

[Aman Soi]

Hi James,

You can refer the compatibility sheet for VG with CUCM version.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps259/product_data_sheet0900aecd8057f2e0.pdf

regds,

aman

[James Hawkins]

Hi,

Thanks for the response. The request to do the gateway upgrades before CUCM has come from the project manager and is driven by the availability of junior engineering staff who will travel to the site to do the physical installations.

I know it is not supported/recommended to do what I suggested - I was just curious to know if it would work. I think it may well do as I have come across a few instances where the MGCP gateway type in CUCM did not match the hardware deployed. e.g. CUCM had a 3825 specified and the gateway was a 3845 - I guess these were the same family though so maybe not such a big difference.

I guess this is another reason to use H.323 rather than MGCP!

[Ayodeji Okanlawon]

I do understand these things are usually driven by PM. But dont forget most times PM dont have a clue about the technologies. The question is this, if you go ahead to do this and it doesnt work, how will you feel on the day? Guess what, the PM will put it all at your desk as the guy who doesnt know what he is doing...Is it worth the risk because PM is pushing it? CUCM7.0 is pretty old..So your chances of this working is very slim. H323, SIP much better

Please rate all useful posts

"opportunity is a haughty goddess who waste no time with those who are unprepared"

[James Hawkins]

Thanks for the responses. I fully appreciate that it is not supported/not a good idea etc. but I would still like anyone who can answer my original question to do so. If other people have had success doing this I will try it in a lab environment. If people who have tried it can confirm that it definitely does not work I will not bother labbing it.

[Aman Soi]

Hi James,

Other way u can do minor upgradation to 7.1(3) for call manager.

regds,

aman