Hi Steve,
For UC540/UC560 we have a CCA or CLI (Partner decides) practice you can follow.
So
when you propose OOB CLI, I cringe just a little hoping the other
partner understands that for a UC540/UC560 it may not be supported.
Unless
they dont want to use CCA and OM and have the specialization for UC
required to maintain a successful CLI practice is all.
Well I do try and point out the pitfalls with making CLI modifications and then trying to manage the system with CCA, however this at times does escape my explanation process, so I will take your cringe as a virtual slap
However in saying that, you wouldn't have to cringe if there was a way that certain things could be done with CCA, this is one of those things which makes me wonder as to why it was left out, since the system is capable of doing it, although these configs were done when CCA was not pushed as the primary way of doing things, so I reiterate I take your point
BTW, I did ask for a CODEC selection for remote teleworker configuration in CCA and they put it on the roadmap.
Again this is great news and glad to hear it
I have a teleworker running with 7 phones (SR520 and an SG300 switch)
and with calls up (some video) and stable it uses over a mbps of the WAN
bandwidth and about 35% of the UC560 CPU. I think these are the
concerns for large teleworker sites (CPU and Bandwidth).
I don't think I would personally propose Video over it as that would cause an impact on the system and leave very little room for remote IP phones expansion, but that is a personal preference.
ALso remember when/if we do G729, then every call that enters CUE will need to be transcoded (DSP resources).
Yeah sure.... Point taken, although I am not adverse to pushing the UC to its limits, after all it is the reason why Cisco is chosen over other players in the market, it is due to the design and build of the system that allows us to get away with unorthodox setups, as Dave Harper once said to me "Happy to give you the ability to make all the changes you want, you have the noose it is up to you if you want to hang yourself with it" and how true was that statement, as I have hung myself with that noose more times than I would like to count (Me thinks I should listen more closely to Dave)
Just to point out the obvious, I only proposed the above because I know the system can handle it and know it can perform well under these circumstances/conditions, again why Cisco is chosen over other systems in the market place. However at the end of the day the engineer deploying the system would need to do their own due diligence and ensure the deployment will not fail or fall over in certain areas, so if G.729 was going to be impacting on the system then during the due diligence process they would need to see if there was enough bandwidth over the WAN connection to support G.711 on as many of the remote phones as possible with G.729 as a fail over.
We after all can only ever provide opinions or guidence's, nothing should ever be set in concrete as no two deployments are the same, what has worked for me in the past may not even come close to working for others, and I am mindful of that when proposing a certain type of deployment.
Anyway this is a good robust debate, but in any event probably one that should be left for a discussion over a beer
Cheers,
David.
Cheers,
David Trad.
**When you rate a persons post, you are indicating a thank you or that it helped, but at the same time you are also helping to maintain the community spirit - You don't have to rate posts and you wont be looked down upon :) *
