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

MGCP and H323 on one gateway

I have a customer that is deploying CVP and as such needs H323 gateways. All of there current gateways are MGCP and they do not want to change that, and they don't want to have buy second gateways to support call center calls. In the SRND guide for CVP it states mgcp and h323 can be on one box, as long as h323 controls the trunks for cvp calls. I have never tried running mgcp and h323 at the same time. What pitfalls or limitations are there (srst?)


Re: MGCP and H323 on one gateway

I am doing this in a similar environment (cvp 3.1 with mgcp/h323 on the same box).

The caveat of "as long as h323 controls the trunks for cvp calls" is pretty big though because the customer would have to have seperate pri's/t1 cas links just for inbound cvp calls.

We have tested SRST and it works properly. MGCP falls back to h.323 and the inbound calls over that PRI (the pri controlled by MGCP) route properly. Inbound calls to the "CVP PRI" still routes calls properly (assuming you have alias's, num-exp, etc setup to handle these calls appropriately.)

please rate helpful posts.

adignan - berbee

New Member

Re: MGCP and H323 on one gateway

Well keeping the cvp calls on separate pri?s is not an issue since they will be new circuits. My big concern was SRST, and how that would be impacted. This customer wants a very conservative approach, so I just want to ensure that I don?t step on my own toes.

Re: MGCP and H323 on one gateway

I have seen people running both protocols on the same router as long as they dont control the same trunk. If a dial-peer has service mgcpapp command , all traffic coming in from the corresponding trunk that MGCP controls is backhauled to Callmanager. So H323 dial-peers wont even see the call signalling. So the trunk (if a PRI) should not have the "Service mgcp" keyword ino rder for H323 to control the trunk.

Doesnt make sense to run MGCP then...

CreatePlease login to create content