Interface between IP telephone and Paging System

Muzammil Nakade · ‎07-22-2011

Dear Folks,

Can you assit me in identifying the interface type/protocol that can be propsoed/configured to interface a Pagaing systems based on vendor Tyco & Cisco proposed IPT solution based on version 8 with cisco 3945 as voice gateway. The tyco solution proivdes an interface type as G8-IAX module to interface with the Data network. This module supports the IAX2 protocol attached data sheet for interface FYR.

As my finding goes it is not compatible with SIP protocol. Can you folks guide me on finding a solution for above.

Thx in Advance.

Tommer Catlin · ‎07-22-2011

Sounds too complicated. There are plenty of solutions out there that are either SIP based or use traditional Analog connections to ring your paging system. If the Tyco accepts analog, you should be fine with connecting it to an FXS port or analog device off CUCM

Clifford McGlamry · ‎07-22-2011

IAX2 is an Astrisk voip protocol and not supported by Cisco. You can't use those together.

You have lots of options:

You can use the paging products from singlewire (www.singlewire.com) or synapps that support direct integration with CCM.

You can interface via an FXO or FXS interface to almost any traditional paging system (Bogen, valcom, etc.). Specific interfaces supported vary by paging controller, so you'd have to look at the specifics of what meets you needs to figure out what you'd need to support it.

HTH.

Cliff

Muzammil Nakade · ‎07-22-2011

Hi Cliff,

Good day,

Thx for your valued guidance as this will really guide me further for the integration design.

As for this project client has already approved the design based on Tyco products So we need to comply with their currently proposed interface.

So can you guide if there can be any work around for above apart from tyring to convert the tyco interface to ANALOUGE.

Your expertize appreciated on above.

TIA.

Clifford McGlamry · ‎07-22-2011

The interface on the Tyco product is a protocol called IAX2, and it's an alternative to SIP or H323. It doesn't have an analog output.

You have two products that do NOT work together. They are not designed to work with each other. This product is designed for an Astrisk phone system. The only way you can force this is by adding another system (probably an Astrisk) to function as a protocol coverter, and that will likely cost many times what it would take to swap out the paging system.

The customer may have already approved the design, but the design has issues you cannot fix. The smart move is to go back and talk to the customer. If they are stuck on this tyco product, find out what feature it is that they feel they must have.

Paging is so simple, most systems have nearly identical features. Chances are excellent you can get what you need in a diffeent product. As long as the customer gets the features they need, they shouldn't really care about the label.

Cliff

Muzammil Nakade · ‎07-22-2011

Hi Cliff,

Thx a million Boss,

Will surely follow your guidance & try to have a meeting & explain customer with the secnario for vendor specific proposed protocal/interface type as i found a project clause mentioned by client wher-in they states that you cannot propose a proprietary solutions.

Also i tried to find some details about IAX2 protocol & read that it is still not an approved IETF standard protocol.

Is this stands true?

Will try teh above approach.

Do keep me assiting furtehr on the above .

TIA & TC.

Clifford McGlamry · ‎07-22-2011

It is not an approved standard.

Good bit of information available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Asterisk_eXchange

protocol is described here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5456.txt

Second document specifically states:

This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The

IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any

purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not

based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control,

   or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The
   IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
   purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not
   based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control,
   or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols.

Cliff

Please rate helpful posts!

Muzammil Nakade · ‎07-23-2011

thx for helfull confirmation with refrences .

Cheers for all.