ATA-187 vs. VG-202

[brian.k.clarke]

Hello friends - I need some "specific use" scenarios to justify the expense of a VG-202 gateway over an ATA-187 when supporting analog devices.  I've been through the datasheets (which don't differ much, detail-wise - one supports SIP-only), and colleagues, which expressed a concern over the ATA's ability to support advanced faxing protocols (again, not in the datasheets).

The VG-202 is more than 2x the list price of the ATA-187.  I'll be presenting soon to the customer, and need to understand the specific reasons why the VG would be required.  Again, I need a few specific case examples where the VG-202 would do the job, and the ATA-187 would NOT.

Thanks, folks!

[Gordon Ross]

We've got lots of ATA186s. When the VG202 came out, we bought one to test. So far, we've yet to find a reason why we need a VG202 over an ATA.

Regarding faxes: providing you use fax-pass through, there's nothing an ATA can't handle.

I hope this helps.

GTG

[brian.k.clarke]

I appreciate your input, Gordon, and good to know. There have to be specific reasons to justify the VG over the ATA, though. I'll hold the thread open for hopefully some additional perspective.

Thanks again

[Gordon Ross · Accepted solution]

OK, I'll bite (again)

The only reason you'd use a VG202 over an ATA is administration.

VGs run IOS, so are nice and easy to administer for your average Cisco engineer. IOS also makes troubleshooting easier too.

The ATAs, *sigh* aren't so administrator friendly.

GTG

[brian.k.clarke]

bump

[Brett Hodgden]

bump

[paolo bevilacqua]

Seems to me that you have been answered quite satisfactorly.

You can compare the data sheets of the two products and learn in first person what they do and how.