MCM operation, Bandwidth Control and Proxies.

[sbedale]

Hello Cisco

I have three questions.

1. Am I right in thinking that there are only two ways to control the amount of H.323 traffic with a Cisco MCM gatekeeper?

The first, is the total of ALL the H.323 traffic within the zone, including that which maybe entering/exiting the zone, by using the ZONE BW command.

The second way is by configuring an H.323 proxy with an ASR interface with bandwidth control, by using the H323 ASR command.

2. Can the MCM proxy operate within a zone controlled by another manufactures gatekeeper, or does it only operate with the Cisco gatekeeper?

3. Imagine you have two zones. One is controlled by the Cisco MCM, and this is also configured with an active H.323 proxy, and the other is controlled by another manufactures gatekeeper (RADVision, PictureTel, etc). Am I correct in thinking that connections into the Cisco zone will be directed through the proxy, but connections out from the Cisco zone will be direct?

Stuart

[sachon]

Some thoughts to your questions -

1.) The only way to control aggregate H.323 traffic within a zone is the max bandwidth command. The ASR function allows you to pick a specific WAN interface for such calls and is not a zone b/w tool. If you need to set up different b/w statements for different components of your network, using multiple GKs would be the recommended approach.

2.) I infer here you are talking about the idea of "sub-zoning" or having GK zones managed by a 3rd party gk. This is not possible. GKs - especially those between manufacturers - have little control mechanisms between them. Distinct zones are usually created in a peering arrangement. However, Cisco does support a hierarchical gatekeeper model which leverages LRQ forwarding that allows you to develop a more scalable dial-plan arrangement when many GKs are necessary to fulfill an application requirement.

3.) Proxies work in tandem so I believe what you ask is not possible. When the MCM communicates with a GK from another manufacturer, the proxy should be bypassed unless the other manufacturer supports proxy as well.

[sbedale]

Hello Sachon

Thanks for your response. Here is an update.

1. I have found that IOS 12.1(5)T supports some enhanced bandwidth controls, you can control the total bandwidth within the zone, you can control the maximum bandwidth per connections, and you can control the maximum bandwidth used for out of zone calls. This is looking very good.

2. This question concerned my ideas on intergrating the Cisco gatekeeper into an existing installation, for expansion of a service. I already have a couple of zones run by another manufactures gatekeepers. I was wondering if I put a Cisco Proxy in each of these zones, I could then make use of the proxy for inter-zone calls, and apply QoS for proxy-proxy traffic. However, having tested this idea, I think the limitation is the fact that the gatekeepers' have to be configured to know when to use a proxy, and it does not appear that my existing gatekeepers support proxies. I am waiting on their comments (other manufacture). Do you know which manufactures support Cisco Proxies?

3. Hmm....I have tested the MCM with my existing gatekeepers, and things aren't working so well. I have raised this through the appropriate channels and I am waiting for a response. It may mean that I will have to change my existing dial plans for inter-zone calls.

Taking this last point further, it appears that each MCM GK has to belong to a (video)domain, and that each alias used in that zone must use the same domain name. Can gatekeepers controlling different zones(sites) have the same domain name, and could an Alais "hotdesk" between these two domains? And can inter-zone dialing still be acheived with E.164 addresses if zone prefixes have NOT been set?

Stuart

[sachon]

Greetings sbedale...

Some Thoughts-

1.) Cisco's proxy to the best of my knowledge works only with Cisco's MCM GK. We do have a GK/API available for other endors to build features to work with our ATM but I'm not aware of anybody specifically leveraging the QoS proxy feature.

2.) Don't understand the issues you are having with dial plans. Please elaborate. As far as your questions for the 'video domain', you are right. We use this lable methodology as a unique identifier for a GK zone when using H.323-IDs. The domain name could be the same but the GK identifier needs to be different - i.e., GK1.cisco.com could identify zone 1 vs. GK2.cisco.com identifies zone 2. Note that these distinctions become somewhat irrelevant to the extent that you use e.164 addressing schemes.

Forward me your email address at schon@cisco.com and I will make available a VC design guide that covers the addressing issue...

[bob_sheldon]

1. Yes

2. No, it works with others GK, that is H.323 compliant

3. Yes