QSIG and Callmanager

miket · ‎02-01-2006

I am planning to do an implemintation with a option 61 and a callmanager .. ALl calls will go thru callmanager to he Meridian. Can anyone conform if I need QSIG on the Meridian.

Voicemail will be an Octel off the Meridian, or using DPA cards...

Rob Huffman · ‎02-01-2006

Hey Mike,

We are running the exact same integration without QSIG on the Meridian.We are using 4 PRI's between the 61c amd CCM 3.3.4 (DMS100 Protocol).The DPA 7610 is a very good product which we are using as well.Let us know if you have any further questions.

Hope this helps!

Rob

Please rate all helpful posts.

jneiberger · ‎02-02-2006

I would recommend using QSIG, otherwise you might end up with extraneous call legs being left up if you have calls that get transferred around a lot. We've done a lot of testing with CallManager and QSIG as part of a VoIP evaluation. We are about to begin a rollout with Cisco gear where we'll front-end a bunch of Option 11C and 81C PBXs with Cisco gateways using QSIG trunks.

Oh, and make sure you turn on QSIG Path Replacement in Call Manager.

What version of software are you running on your Nortel gear? You need to have a fully patched 25.40 system or Succession 3.0/4.0 to get good QSIG functionality.

John

laubry · ‎02-02-2006

neibergeri,

I need to do the same (using QSIG) except we will be using the Nortel Call Pilot as voicemail system for both CallManager and Nortel PBX's. The Cisco whitepaper stated Succession 4.0 but we only have the 3.0 version. Nortel is running 25.40b fully patched. Do you know if there will be a problem using Succession 3.0 especially with MWI & other voicemail issues. Thanks. Lance

jneiberger · ‎02-02-2006

We didn't have any QSIG problems with 3.0 on our Option 11 PBXs during proof-of-concept testing, but there is a Path Replacement bug in 3.0 on the 81C software, so we're going to upgrade that PBX before we implement CallManager.

We didn't notice any problems on our 4.0 systems during testing.

We probably won't begin the implementation until March, so I reserve the right to update my remarks at that time. ;-)

John

laubry · ‎02-02-2006

Neiberger,

What is actually going on with this bug? Does the MWI light not light? More detail would greatly be appreciated?

Thanks again,

Lance

jneiberger · ‎02-02-2006

It was a QSIG Path Replacement bug. It's broken and unreliable in 3.0 on an 81C. The 3.0 code on the 11C seems to be fine.

charles.kim · ‎02-07-2006

We are currently about tot experience the same problem. Is there an interim patch for succession 3.0? Is the only option then to upgrade to succession 4.0/4.5 ?

jneiberger · ‎02-07-2006

I'll have to ask my manager about that. I don't remember if there is a patch for 3.0 on the large system software. Remember, in our testing, this only showed up in the large system version of 3.0. It was not occurring in 3.0 on our Option 11C PBXs.

I think we're just going to upgrade to 4.0 but I might be wrong about that. I don't remember if my manager wanted to upgrade or if he just wanted to apply a patch.

I'm out of town on business at the moment but I'll try to remember to ask him about it and let you know.

laubry · ‎02-08-2006

We've gotten Cisco involved in helping us with addressing this Succession 3.0 81c issue. They're asking what FirstBank is I guess what business sector or could you provide the name of the Cisco engineer that you've been working with in preparation for your potential rollout. So that way we can find out all that you've already found out? As far as testing and issues?

laubry · ‎02-08-2006

Sorry Cisco is also asking for the physical address of your headquarters so they can find out who might be assigned to your Call Manager efforts?

jneiberger · ‎02-08-2006

We're in Denver and have been working with engineers from the Denver office, mostly Brian Atkinson, Dennis Trop (from Salt Lake City), and Andrew Tennant. However, we know more about the problems with Succession than they do. It probably wouldn't be very helpful to contact them since they'd probably just refer you to me. :-)

I'll be back in the office tomorrow. I'll ask my manager if there is a 3.0 patch or if have to upgrade to 4.0 to fix the path replacement issue.

jneiberger · ‎02-09-2006

I asked my manager about this and he said that our Nortel VAR, Qwest, is not aware of any patch in 3.0 that fixes this problem. When the time comes, we'll approach Nortel to fix the problem in 3.0 with a patch. This shouldn't be much of a problem since that system is under maintenance. We investigated upgrading to Succession 4.x (4.5, I think) and the cost was outrageous.

laubry · ‎02-09-2006

Yeah, we understand that cost to be about $40k. We're also pursuing a path for a patch with Nortel I will keep you informed if one exists.

laubry · ‎04-25-2006

Hi, Sorry for bugging you again. Just wanted to pick your brian for a second. Seeing that we've run the TAC and Nortel TAC course. And still working it. But I sent you an email some time back in reference to a QSig bug that you were working with via the Cisco NetPro Forum, we're into implementation for this customer and having a great deal of issues with getting Call Pilot to accept a redirected call from a Cisco IP phone. Is your environment using Call Pilot, have you encountered this issue? If so how did you resolve? Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated.