Voice and Video on the Gatekeeper?

Unanswered Question
Nov 27th, 2008

I was originally looking to deploy gatekeepers in a voice only infrastructure for address resolution between a number of sites which all have their own Site codes- no problem however now we are looking to make use of the same GK`s for video again using the same sites codes- is the single GK approach for voice and video recommended?

The video devices will register to a regional CCM, this CCM will route normal voice traffic to the GK as well

Voice calls dial 8xx+ extension number to dial another site, the 8 is a route pattern to the GK

Ideally only one set of Gatekeepers to serve both voice and video

Same access code for voice and video 8xxxxx but different bandwidth sizes based upon the type of call

Below is a simple example of a possible GK set up

Zone local London cisco.com x.x.x.x

Zone local New York

Zone local Tokyo

Zone prefix London 812*

Zone prefix New York 846*

Zone prefix Tokyo 823 *


I would like for a video call to be sent to the GK for resolution but be governed by the bandwidth commend say 384 for Video however a voice call to the same site to be governed by either no bandwidth control or another figure e.g 880. Also I`m trying to cut down on the amount of commends in the GK so this is the reason we wish to use GK`s

Can it be done?

My thinking is as bandwidth commend is linked to the name of the zone and so the name of CCM registered to it , can I register two trunks to the GK from the same CCM but with different names and use the routing in CCM to pick the voice trunk and the video trunk?

Zone local Londonvoice cisco.com x.x.x.x

Zone local New Yorkvoice

Zone local Tokyovoice

Zone local Londonvideo

Zone local New Yorkvideo

Zone local Tokyovideo

however I then have the issue of wanting to use the same access code for both calls

Again maybe use different tech-prefix on the voice trunk and video trunk 1#. 2# and somehow use this for routing in the same way as a zone prefix? can you associate a bandwidth to a tech-prefix. I know you can use hopoff based upon the tech-prefix but how good is this approach and is it recommended? Another way is If we do not allocate any bandwidth setting to voice but only video then the voice calls could use the hop off statements for routing and the video use the zone local statements , how much work is this , is it recommended?

An other way is to use two access codes 8 for voice #8 for video, if I do this do I need to have multiple local zone as below but the question is still can the CCM register two different trunks so to create the different zones LONDONVOICE, LONDONVIDEO to the same GK ?

Zone local Londonvoice.cisco.com x.x.x.x

Zone local New Yorkvoice

Zone local Tokyovoice

Zone local Londonvideo

Zone local New Yorkvideo

Zone local Tokyovideo

Zone prefix Londonvoice 812*

Zone prefix New Yorkvoice 846*

Zone prefix Tokyovoice 823 *

Zone prefix Londonvideo #812*

Zone prefix New Yorkvideo #846*

Zone prefix Tokyovideo #823 *

I could then at least have different bandwidths per zone

bandwidth interzone new yorkvoice 880

bandwidth interzone new yorkvideo 384

Also can you have bandwidth zone between individual zones i.e to limit the number of calls between CCM A to CCM B to be 880 but CCM A to CCM C to be 128 due to the different possible links

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)


This Discussion