Cisco Support Community
Community Member

Extending IPT from HQ to branch sites (Signalling Method PROS/CONS)


Let says I have IPT at the HQ and I would like to roll IPT at the branch site in a Centralized Deployment. The branch site would have 3-4 Analog Lines coming from the Telco. What signalling would be better to implement at the router located at the branch site: H.323 or MGCP? PROS/CONS?? I know that with MGCP I would have all my dial plan within CCM and the router can fall back to H.323 for using SRST but judging by your implementation what would be the best method??

At the site let say I have four Universal FXO at the router to be connected to the Analog Lines coming from the telco and a FXS to connect a fax machine and 10-15 IP Phones.




Re: Extending IPT from HQ to branch sites (Signalling Method PRO

I typically use MGCP for remote routers where I can. The reasoning behind this is the additional centralized managability that MGCP gives you, exposing individual endpoint status through the Real Time Monitoring Tool, and possibly increased call detailing depending on your topology.

For SRST, you WILL need to recreate much of your dialplan on the remote router (for example, if you have fax machines or whatnot hanging off of analog ports, you will need to have dial-peer's for each for SRST mode). You may need an alias or two to catch numbers that normally route to an Auto Attendant and route them to a reception phone.

Ultimately, the decision is up to you. For my customers, managability needs to be made as simple and centralized as possible, so MGCP is typically the choice where available.

CreatePlease to create content