Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

H323 Vs MGCP


I work in a call center which uses CCM 3.3.3 (yes, really!) for outbound dialling. We use Cisco 2811 routers as H323 voice gateways.

I'm interested in whether using MGCP gateways would be advantageous:

Specifically, I'm interested to know whether use of MGCP is likely to increase the load on the call manager (I suspect it will) which would be an obvious disadvantage. I'm also interested in whether the use of MGCP which enables the call manager to see interfaces on gateways as opposed to just gateways would enable the call manager to route calls more quickly where the first, second etc destination in the route list is busy/unavailable.

I am of the opinion that we should use MGCP because it will allow us to spread calls more evenly across our VGs by mixing up the route lists to include interfaces from different gateways. However, I need to convince my boss who is of the opinion that there's no need to change.

The problem that I've got is that I'd need to upgrade the CCM to 3.3.5 because MGCP isn't supported on 2800 routers until this release. Hence I need to convince my boss that all that hassle is gonna be worth it.

Any advice etc is greatly appreciated.

Everyone's tags (4)
Hall of Fame Super Gold

Re: H323 Vs MGCP

Any protocol properly configured will allow yout to spread calls as desired.

Generally speaking, MGCP has many limitation, however for a comparison you can search the forum for the many threads on the subject.


H323 Vs MGCP

IMHO H.323 generally works better than MGCP. It's always what I use based on a fair few years experience. It gives you some advantages over MGCP - including being able to perform voice translations at the gateway level which I use a fair amount. Most of Paolo's useful scripts only work on H.323 gateways as well.

Personally I think you'd be better off investing your time and effort in getting to a supported CUCM version

Barry Hesk

Intrinsic Network Solutions