Standalone Telepresence solution

[cmfndiaye]

Greetings,

I wanted to ask if there is a solution to deploy cisco Telepresence in a standalone way, that is without

an integration with CUCM.

Regards!

[Martin Koch · Accepted solution]

Sure, you can get a Cisco TelePresence Endpoint (like C-/EX-/SX-/MX-Series) and just use an IP 2 IP h323 call.

TelePresence Product overview:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7060/index.html

Works ok, but I prefer a call control like VCS or CUCM!

If you think of internet connectivity and you need to do handle home offices / nat / firewalls / ...

a VCS Expressway Starter Pack could be handy:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps7060/ps11305/ps11315/ps11337/data_sheet_c78-697075.html

There are also companies (like us) which offer endpoint registrations so if you do not want to

worry about investments or operation this could also be an option.

[cmfndiaye]

Thanks Martin for the quick answer.

the reason why I need this kind of solution is that the customer has only an ADSL connection, no real network infrastructure.

[gsykes · Accepted solution]

You may still deploy call control even in this scenario, in fact you may need it if the router on the end of the ADSL is performing NAT. VCS expressway is the solution here, giving your endpoint a URI identity that means it can be dialled from any other Internet connected endpoint. URIs are the future of Video /Internet connectivity, without URI you will be severely limited in what you can connect to.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

[cmfndiaye]

Thanks for the help! But the CTS Profile series are they standalone solution also?

[gsykes]

Yes, CTS Profiles are able to communicate with other systems via IP address dialling so in that sense they may stand alone.

Still strongly recommend you look for a service provider partner that can register your systems to call control (my organisation provides this service, as does Martin's I beleive), or invest in a VCS Expressway.

[cmfndiaye]

Many thanks gsykes!

I will consider your recommendation but actually the client is just interested in this kind of solution.

But tell me by using the dialing using IP address and if your public IP address change every time, is there a solution apart the VPN setting?

[gsykes · Accepted solution]

Not really Fadel.  The answer always comes back to call control.  If you use a public or a private IP address, call control still gives you a static, URI based identity that is persistent.  It really is the only way people should be considering deploying VC moving forward, or risk becoming isolated from everywhere else.

[cmfndiaye]

Hence the need of a SIP carrier!

Thanks a lot gsykes!

[gsykes]

You're very welcome

[Martin Koch]

Yes I fully agree with gsykes, URI dialing is the way to go.

Also don't forget that we have a mix of different protocols, and flavors (XMPP, H323, SIP, vendor specific or proprietary implementations), ...)

Videoconferencing style IP dialing is most likely only h323 and you would be left be hind here as well.

URI dialing has the chance to bring them together with clever endpoints or gateways.

For me bringing these worlds together is "Unified Communication"

Also the security aspect, h323 uses a wide range of ports + public ip addresses with NAT.

Many network admins dont like that. In big organizations you can have a closed down network

with the video endpoints and a VCS-C and that one only needs some ports open towards the

VCS-E which is the only component that needs to be exposed to the public.