1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Would this BOM be ok for a small business UC system?

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by -Sk3tChY-, Sep 3, 2012.

  1. -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Hoping someone a little more 'in-the-know' can shed a little light on the BOM I've come up with and perhaps make recommendations on where improvements/savings could be made:

    • UC540W-FXO-K9 - UC540
    • CON-SBS-SVC2 - Support for UC540
    • SRW2024P-K9-AU - SG300-28P
    • CON-SBS-SVC2 - Support for Switch
    • CP-7942G= - User IP Phones
    • CON-SNT-CP7942 - Support for IP Phones
    • CP-7962G= - Reception IP Phone
    • CON-SNT-CP7962 - Support for Reception IP Phone

    To be used for:

    UC540 will be connected to the internet via a bridged modem and calls will be made utilizing an SIP trunk.

    Switch will be used for both phones AND workstations, ideally through daisy chaining.

    Would the above be an ideal solution? Would there be better priced or more appropriate siwtches/phones that could be used?

    Any information would be great. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2012
  2. Crusher

    Crusher Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,069
    Location:
    Sydney & Adelaide
    THat all looks OK... the UC540 does skinny and sip handsets, so if you had any location that just need basic phones you could use some SPA50x handsets.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Thanks for that mate.

    Might be a bit of a silly question but what exactly is the diff with skinny/sip?
     
  4. fR33z3

    fR33z3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,164
    Location:
    Perth
    At the crux of the argument, SCCP or 'skinny' is Cisco proprietary. SIP is an rfc based standard. Have a guess which gets more love from Cisco :)
     
  5. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Cisco SIP on their handsets isnt that compliant anyway! They send SCCP messages within the SIP Body. Go figure.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    From what I've gathered SCCP is how the phones communicate internally and is a basically just a lightweight way of sending voice data?
     
  7. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    SCCP is Simple Call Control Protocol. It handles events from the Cisco handsets such as digit pressed, feature keys, pushing data to screen, phone control etc.

    SIP is Session Initiation Protocol. It's used to set up and tear down calls, and do media stream negotiation. It doesn't support all the events that SCCP does, do Cisco wrap those events into a SIP notification message.
    The upside of SIP is its an open standard. The down side in Cisco phones, is to use all of the useful features, it does some really non standard stuff.

    I'd stuck to SIP for your in and outbound trunks to other devices or carriers, and use SCCP on your Cisco handsets. A lot less dicking around.

    Edit: both protocols are control protocols. They both set up an RTP stream for the actual voice content, which is identical* no matter what control protocol us used.

    * based in negotiation of course
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2012
  8. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Thanks Mjunek for that info. :)

    I had another fairly basic question:

    The BOM above doesn't take into account the ADSL2+ modem.

    From what I've gathered the UC500 series boxes have a VIC slot, which is different to a HWIC slot and upon a quick google I can't really find anything on an optional ADSL2+ card for the UC500 boxes.

    Is it possible to get one of these? Or is the only option to bridge an ADSL2+ modem?
     
  9. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Haven't looked into the UC500 (its smaller than what we normally install) but if it's a VIC slot, it wont take a WIC / HWIC. VIC's are voice cards only.

    I'd suggest using a separate modem / router for your internet - the last thing you want is your UC500 box to become compromised and someone to run up hundreds or thousands of dollars of phone costs.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Boo!

    Valid point.

    My reasoning behind it was to be able to offer the client an 'all-in-one' type solution. As you can tell from the BOM, they're a fairly small business; so the less infrastructure the better.

    No big deal though.

    I am assuming there wouldn't be any issues with using any modem provided it can do bridging?

    Would there be any advantage to using a Cisco modem as well?
     
  11. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Bahaha Another one of Cisco's lovely quirks and cash-grab design ideas no doubt.


    Yeah you could do bridging, and drop the PPPoE dialler on the UC500 (assuming the IOS supports it), and you'd be fine. Make sure you plan your ACLs appropriately to stop SIP and other Telephony protocols from traversing your internet connection.

    IMO the modems are all the same rubbish. If you're doing bridging then the software on the modem is somewhat irrelevant, it's more the chipset that's doing the DSL coding that gets important.
    I've had issues with my home Cisco 857 on TPG, to the point where I have it rebooting nightly. Mind you, I've had issues with other modems in other places as well.
    So I cant really give a certainty on that one, sorry!

    What are they using currently for internet? You could always keep that modem in place and reconfigure it for bridging, if they dont have problems with it.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Wouldn't I want SIP and telephony to traverse the interwebs? They'll be utilizing a SIP trunk to inbound/outbound calls?

    This is the logical representation I've come up with.

    Valid point.

    Well right now the building is still under construction, so they have nothing. :p
     
  13. ltd73

    ltd73 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,724
    if it were me, i'd just deploy a bunch of SIP handsets with the rest in the cloud.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Would this be a Hosted PBX type solution? Or does this just require a SIP trunk? (i.e. You just put config in the phones and that's it)
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2012
  15. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Hosted PBX.

    Depends how your trunk is delivered. I don't like routing IP Telephony over the internet as you've got no QoS or any form of control of the packets, and can seriously affect voice quality.

    If the trunk endpoint is internet based however, I'd make sure you have strict ACL controls of where you receive the SIP from to prevent abuse of your service.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2012
  16. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,967
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Yeah, this is an option we are looking at, just weighing this up against an on-site PBX solution.

    I just noticed there's a UC320; aside from it obviously having gigabit ethernet and wireless n, what's the major difference between this and the UC540?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2012
  17. ltd73

    ltd73 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,724
    i've worked from home for about the last 17 years, about 14 of those with an IP phone at home.
    there's the odd issue but not that much.

    and this was with the PSTN gateway on the other side of the planet. (i.e. in the US)
     
  18. mjunek

    mjunek Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Yeah it works, but not always as you'd like.
    The company i work for deals with call centres & IPTEL solutions, and we have some customers who have home workers on consumer DSL connections. Dropouts and bad quality galore, we try to avoid it like the plague. Typically we prefer G.711 though, rather than G.729 that most internet SIP providers use, for the better quality voice.
    6 of one, half a dozen....

    Really depends on what else is being pushed over the wire.
     
  19. Crusher

    Crusher Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,069
    Location:
    Sydney & Adelaide
    One is a decent SME PBX, the other is a stinking pile of dogs turd that I wouldnt wish on my worst enemy.

    I had a UC320W on eval for a couple of weeks, it has a mandatory reboot of system and handsets on a weekly to clear resources so it doesnt fall over. It also has a well documented set of bugs which take ages to get fixed, many aren't, and terrible speaker phone volume on the SPA5xx handsets on external PSTN service calls (even after line optimisation).
     
  20. ranova

    ranova Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    Tasmania
    +1
    Rolled out a UC320W for a small site (4 handsets)
    Steaming pile of crap!

    Making even the smallest change results in a full reset of the phones (Not the quick de-register/re-register but a full boot cycle)

    Never again do I want to deal with one
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: