MGCP vs H.323 for Q.Sig gateway

[garland]

Hi,

I'm implementing a gateway into a BT FeatureNet VPN cloud (DPNSS). Customer has a Westell iQ2000 DPNSS to Q.Sig (or Q.931) converter box so FeatureNet is essentially presented as Q.Sig (but could be presented as Euro Q.931).

A 2650HDV-E1 router will act as the gateway between the Westell and CCM cluster. Which is 'best' H.323 or MGCP? Is it possible to use either?

MGCP seems instinctively 'better' as most of the configuration will be via CCM rather than by dial-peers. Are there any gotchas?

N.B. Customer says they never use any advanced features like 'camp on/ring back' so feature transparency between AVVID and DPNSS is not an issue.

[thusain]

Its more of a preference rather than a design question. You can use either h323 or mgcp, both have their ups and downs. MGCP involves most configuration on the CCM but takes away some of the gateways troubleshooting powers. H323 involves cli configuration but is more mature and has more troubleshooting advantages. So its up to you. Make sure you pick your IOS wisely if you are going to do mgcp.

[j.ayres · Accepted solution]

If you are running current versions of CallManager you don't have a choice if you are using Q.Sig - it has to be H.323.

Q.Sig support for MGCP requires 12.2(11)T on the gateway (available) and CallManager 3.3(1) (December).

MGCP is preferable for a dial-peer perspective and also because of call preservation. In the event of the controlling CallManager failing during a call through an MGCP gateway, the audio path will be maintained (supplementary services are lost of course). H.323 will lose the call.

Regards,

Justin