SIP trunking through UC500 via dual WAN SA 500?

Answered Question
Sep 18th, 2009

Hi,

This is a rather obscure question, but applicable to the majority of my customers.  The release of the SA 500 series of security appliances with built in dual-WAN capabilities (failover and load balancing) is very exciting for us where our customers often like the ability to load balance their Internet traffic between two different ISPs (specifically an Enterprise Satellite connection and either terrestrial or cellular).  However, with other load-balancing routers, we have noticed that VoIP traffic can be a little problematic as there is a significant latency difference between satellite (~500ms) and cellular or terrestrial.  Is there a way to program the SA 500 to force voice traffic through one WAN port while in load balance mode?

I am hoping to have this equipment in house in the next few weeks to set up a test, and am in info gathering mode right now.

I would be using a UC520 or UC540 in conjunction with an SA 500.

Thanks in advance,

Seth

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by Steven Smith about 7 years 2 months ago

Yes, you can do this.  You need to do protocol bindings which will force SIP and RTP across the desired port.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Marcos Hernandez Fri, 09/18/2009 - 12:30

Hi Seth,

Good question. This particular deployment model has not been tested. Let me do some internal research and I will get back to you ASAP.


Thanks,


Marcos

Correct Answer
Steven Smith Fri, 09/18/2009 - 16:34

Yes, you can do this.  You need to do protocol bindings which will force SIP and RTP across the desired port.

8jschmidt Tue, 05/31/2011 - 08:34

Steve,  elaboration of your simple solution is welcome.  Fail-over and/or Load-Balancing are possible configurations applicable to either or both sa520 / uc520?  Presumably, at uc520 we configure two SIP trunks, possibly to same provider, possibly to same server, possibly with same reg/auth.  Thanks for clarification.  john

Actions

This Discussion