Re: I think SRP5xx series is a completely a joke!! - Page 2

thinkerhk · ‎08-24-2011

This line of product is basically created a lot of false expectation, if you see the basic configuration:

1. You will expect it has a full VPN function; sorry, it only provided a site to site, not wanna can route over to the other side public internet

2. It has 2 phone jacks and a pstn jack; sorry, bascially you can only use to dial internal, the line is just a bypass?!?!?! not a fxo

3. what the hell to use with a 3G donge in a office? the 3G is extremely expensive, how will you like to use it to share a office internet?

4. USB in a office router has a better function; to provide a network storage, not 3G internet; but sorry, you got only 3G internet.

So what the hell in your brain when Cisco is defining this product? I think it is good before I bought it but I think I am stupid when I actually using it.

Max Chow

Leah Davis · ‎09-17-2011

Hi, Max. I would appreciate if you would email me for direct product related ?s as I am currently on international business travel in Asia (ledavis@cisco.com). In response to your questions:

1. Point to point VPN is available if you install SRP in PRC and HK respectively. Up to 5 IPSec VPN tunnels are supported. As mentioned, we have VPN server for Cisco VPN clients (remote clients) on our roadmap. Please see SRP Configuration Guide on how to set up site to site IPSec VPN here: https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-16927

2. For the SRP520, the Line port is provided for life line (i.e. when you need to make an outbound emergency call) only. Power out or no registration causes a physical connection between phone 1 and line ports, meaning that line 1 can be connected to either the SIP account or the PSTN line. There is no selective call routing with this product. The SRP520 does not include FXO termination circuitry, so there is no possibility that a firmware upgrade will change this behaviour. The SPA3102 can provide the call handling functionality that you are looking for here. If you decide to go with the SRP54X then this product does have an active FXO port, and this is published in the datasheets.

3. Thank you for your feedback on third point.

Sincerely,

Leah

Leah Davis · ‎09-17-2011

Hey, Max. Here is the list of 3G modems current supported on SRP500:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10500/prod_technical_reference_list.html. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Sincerely,

Leah

thinkerhk · ‎09-17-2011

1. it seems that you have misunderstood my need here. I have the SRP, one

in SZ office and one in HK office, what I want to do is to route all traffic

in SZ office to go out through HK internet. So that's what I need. I don't

need a road warrior login.

2. if the SRP54x series can works as a VoIP gateway, of course I am

interested to trade my SRP521w for it.

3. Thanks for your compatibility list.

Max

On 17 September 2011 17:24, ledavis <

Andrew Hickman · ‎09-19-2011

Hi Max,

1. The IPSec feature of the SRP500 is principally intended for site to site traffic - it is not therefore possible to set up a default route from SZ to access the Internet via the IPSec tunnel through HK. This could be made to work if you used a proxy-server in HK though.

2. The FXO port of the SRP540 was mainly designed as failover for local FXS ports, and not as a gateway port. You will not be able to route calls from SZ to HK numbers via the FXO interface I'm afraid (there is no SIP User Agent associated with the FXO port on this device).

Sorry for the bad news Max,

Andy

thinkerhk · ‎09-19-2011

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your mail. But I heard that the SRP52x is a failover FXO but

SRP54x is a true FXO, doesn't it?

Max

On 20 September 2011 09:12, ahickman <

Andrew Hickman · ‎09-20-2011

Correct, it is a true FXO port, in so far that it terminates a telephone line and it will route to and from local FXS ports when handling calls during failure conditions.

There is no SIP user agent associated with this port though, so calls may not be routed to and from it by a remote call control agent, or indeed by any remote SIP user agent (phone, gateway, etc...)

Regards,

Andy

thinkerhk · ‎09-20-2011

OK.

See. this is why I have this comment.

Max

On 20 September 2011 17:23, ahickman <

Andrew Hickman · ‎09-20-2011

Hi Max,

We'd really love to include every feature required by every customer, but I'm sure that you'll appreciate this would be very difficult to do whilst maintaining a reasonable price point.

I'm sorry that we haven't been able to meet your requirements on this occassion.

Regards,

Andy