Teleworker and Remote Phones more thoughts

Unanswered Question
May 3rd, 2010
User Badges:

Hello I have been working a lot of teleworker scenarios lately which has prompted me to write this message and poll the community.  I think one of the great strenghs of the UC500 is the ability to deploy teleworkers and I would be curious about learning some of the setups you all have worked with:


- What is the largest "traditional teleworker" deployment you have done?

- What bandwidth planning process do you go through when thinking per-phone (assumign G711)

- Thoughts on use 525G SSL connections instead of traditional teleworker?  Worked?? How well?



and on a side note is there anyway to get Monitor / Watch type functions for buttons to work between UC500 / CME systems?  I am assuming not but I wanted to check with you all.


thanks!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Arthur Kant Tue, 05/11/2010 - 07:17
User Badges:

Not really a survey, more of a community discussion about one of the stronger tools Cisco offers.. I want to make sure all of my teleworker deployments are rock solid.

tuandatnv Fri, 10/01/2010 - 06:18
User Badges:

Dear Marcos,


I have remote phone problem with UC520 latest firmware 8.0.4

The system was working OK with firmware 7.1.1, but after upgrade to UC520 to 8.0.4, my remote phone Cisco9706 lost audio stream.

The remote Cisco7906 is still registered OK with main UC520, we can make call to and from this remote Cisco7906, but when take off the phone, there was silent, no voice


I tried to test with another hardware phone Cisco7960, but the problem still the same. But change to test with Cisco Communicator software, it is working fine (it mean the Cisco Communicator from remote site is working fine with UC520 firmware 8.0.4)


My setup was very typical one : UC520 in the center office with EZVPN Server setup with split networks for subnet Data( 192.168.10.0, Voice 10.1.1.0 and 10.1.10.0, the ephone setup for these remote phone included command mtp and I use transcode to use codec G729 for remote phone.


The remote home is Cisco877 with EZVPN client (local authentication), the Cisco Phone (7906 or 7960 or Cisco Communicator) was in LAN side and NAT through EZVPN to connect to UC520 with split networks set from UC520


The DHCP server in Cisco877 included option 150 ip point to TFTP server in UC520 (10.1.1.1)


I wonder if it was bug with new firmware 8.0.4 ?

The remote phone is very important for me, so please help to fix it. I will give more information, debug if needed


We are the first Select Partner in Asia Pacific from 2007, and have use UC520 since then.


I look forward to hearing from you soon


Tuan Nguyen

Hi Arthur, regarding your questions:


My company has made various UC500/CME deployments where teleworker/remote phones registration was a must. We have simulated this kind of deployment using UC500, just for testing purposes and our conclusions are following:


- UC500 does not support survival in case the VPN goes down, so we don´t think this model is suitable for a deployment where there are no more than 4 or 5 teleworkers, and when voice services are not mission critical (if is there any). We completed a test using four g711 phones over VPN and was quite successful although.


- DSP resource resources are very limited in UC500 hardware, so if you are planning to save bandwith using g729 in offsite phones,hardware transcoding is something to think about quite carefully, this is completelly different when DSP modules are installed on a ISR, we actually have one deployment where there are about 15 teleworkers using the g729 codec hardware assisted and we did not have mayor issues so far, voice quality is flawless but this CME is running on a 2911 ISR2.


- Bandwith planning combined with traffic shapping is a must in these deployments, we always take extremely care of upstream bandwith, it depends on the way you connect to the main site, we use DMVPN mostly and for that using g711 we always asume a 90 kbps use per call and 24 kbps for g279, crypto and other heathers increase the bandwith requirements in 16 kbps at least. Traffic shapping is to us as critical as ra eliable VPN connection, no shapping means creepy sound and call drops, jitter and unsatisfied customers.


- We have not tested voice over SSL yet, and we don´t have plans to sell this kind of deployments by now, in our opinion it doesn´t seem as reliable as a VPN conection handled by a router is, specially regarding traffic shapping.


Hope our toughts can help you Arthur.

David Trad Mon, 05/10/2010 - 15:39
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more
  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2013 Small Business

Hi Arthur,



- What is the largest "traditional teleworker" deployment you have done?

Currently 17 remote teleworkers, looking to expand that to 20



- What bandwidth planning process do you go through when thinking
per-phone (assumign G711)


I dont assume G-711, it is just not practical with bandwidth limitations so G-729 is the first choice, 711 is only considered where quality is of big issue.


- Thoughts on use 525G SSL connections instead of traditional
teleworker?  Worked?? How well?


Hmmm unable to make a comment on this as I have not even considered doing it, I am still a firm believer of an 857/877 at the teleworker site, by having those routers there we can program in failovers where more then one UC is in play.



and on a side note is there anyway to get Monitor / Watch type functions
for buttons to work between UC500 / CME systems?  I am assuming not but
I wanted to check with you all.



I am not aware of any sadly :(


I would love for something like this to be available, there could be but i am just not aware of it.


Right now one site the Teleworkers use the 7931 phones as they are talking to the one CME, so they can just monitor/watch and transfer between phones easily enough.


I hope you find the answers you are looking for, the UC-500 are quite handy at creating extra reach, but in doing so you do loose some localized functions..



Cheers,



David.

Actions

This Discussion