SIP in a cisco enviornment... why?

chmorin

So SCCP is the grandaddy of cisco phones it seems. I have pretty much 0 experience with SIP. I read the theory, tested the theory, and get the theory, but I never configured it. Now, I'm changing that now. But why in the world would I use SIP over SCCP in a cisco environment? If they were not cisco phones, I'd get it. But they are so... why would I use SIP?

This is probably going to get my "Stupid question of the day" mark.

shodown

in the since of SCCP VS SIP if you already have cisco phones just use Skinny. But if you bring in some of the Tandberg, and polycom or even Avaya Devices you will be left with using Sip as the other brands don't support SCCP.

tokhss

I have yet to read a reason why you would.

I guess short answer is .. you dont.

cisco_trooper

...or your company won't buy the Cisco Call Center / Unified Communications because the price is sky high and you don't need all the fancy bells and whistles just phone calls so you are left with asterisk and some fancy but underutilized Cisco phones...

...and this receives my long-winded run on sentence of the century award because that is just the mood i'm in because i just spent an hour trying to figure out why a script wouldn't work because i didn't know what i was doing because i started using windows 7....

LOL.

chmorin

cisco_trooper wrote: »

...or your company won't buy the Cisco Call Center / Unified Communications because the price is sky high and you don't need all the fancy bells and whistles just phone calls so you are left with asterisk and some fancy but underutilized Cisco phones...

...and this receives my long-winded run on sentence of the century award because that is just the mood i'm in because i just spent an hour trying to figure out why a script wouldn't work because i didn't know what i was doing because i started using windows 7....

LOL.

LOL. So basically in a CUCM enviornment with cisco devices, no need for SIP. Amazing.

And I'm with you there, I'm actually implementing Trixbox (astrix package) in a small site right now. Down the line I plan on SIP Trunking it to your main CUCM cluster, but I actually am impressed with what astrix can do.

networker050184

Its kind of like asking why you would use OSPF instead of EIGRP when you have an all Cisco network. A lot of people like to use open standard protocols.

shodown

chmorin wrote: »

LOL. So basically in a CUCM enviornment with cisco devices, no need for SIP. Amazing.

And I'm with you there, I'm actually implementing Trixbox (astrix package) in a small site right now. Down the line I plan on SIP Trunking it to your main CUCM cluster, but I actually am impressed with what astrix can do.

It depends on the environment. I use SIP in my CME/CUE deployments, and they are all cisco. SIP is just not used for phone signaling. I'm actually on a TAC case right now with a IP to IP Gateway(CUBE) for a SIP trunk that isn't working correctly with a ITSP. You can use SIP for trunks to Service Providers for voice calls. you can use them for connections between clusters, you can use them for signaling. Voicemail, Video, and more. Make sure you are very aware of sip. 3 years ago when I started VOIP it wasn't much SIP out there. Now I deal with SIP around 20 percent of my Day and its growing.

chmorin

networker050184 wrote: »

Its kind of like asking why you would use OSPF instead of EIGRP when you have an all Cisco network. A lot of people like to use open standard protocols.

Well that makes sense. But routers and cisco L3 devices are not configured with a default of EIGRP. Cisco phones are, by default unless otherwise specified on order, SCCP. So it would just be a pain in the A$$ to make them an open standard with little to no change in practical functionality.

You would have to be one of those OCD "BUT ITS AN OPEN STANDARD SO ITS BETTER" people to get wound up so much that you would do that to your Cisco environment.

chmorin

shodown wrote: »

It depends on the environment. I use SIP in my CME/CUE deployments, and they are all cisco. SIP is just not used for phone signaling. I'm actually on a TAC case right now with a IP to IP Gateway(CUBE) for a SIP trunk that isn't working correctly with a ITSP. You can use SIP for trunks to Service Providers for voice calls. you can use them for connections between clusters, you can use them for signaling. Voicemail, Video, and more. Make sure you are very aware of sip. 3 years ago when I started VOIP it wasn't much SIP out there. Now I deal with SIP around 20 percent of my Day and its growing.

I recognize the significance and capability of the the SIP Trunk, but I mean to refer to phone deployments. There is nothing wrong with using SIP for phones, and if you are a small site saving money using mostly non-cisco phone equipment then SIP is the way to go. I was just wondering if there was a reason to use SIP in a cisco environment over SCCP. So far all I get is "just cuz".

EDIT:
I am actually deploying Trixbox as an Astrix solution in some of our small sites and plan on SIP Trunking them to CUCM. It is actually really cool. Astrix, naturally, uses SIP.

pitviper

Interoperability with other vendor’s heathen devices. That’s about it! Some of the "other" Call Manager equivalents are nice in their own respects but when the stuff hits the fan (and I’m the one they are calling) I’ll take a TAC safety blanket any day!

phoeneous

So if I have an NEC system at one site and CUCM in another, I could run sip and have the two sites be able to dial by extension? Sites are connected via p2p.

pitviper

phoeneous wrote: »

So if I have an NEC system at one site and CUCM in another, I could run sip and have the two sites be able to dial by extension? Sites are connected via p2p.

Depends on the model but theoretically yes. I’ve done (well, fixed anyways) SiP trunks between NEC Aspire’s before.

chmorin

phoeneous wrote: »

So if I have an NEC system at one site and CUCM in another, I could run sip and have the two sites be able to dial by extension? Sites are connected via p2p.

I plan on configuring that in just a few weeks. I'll post up how it goes

stuh84

chmorin wrote: »

I recognize the significance and capability of the the SIP Trunk, but I mean to refer to phone deployments. There is nothing wrong with using SIP for phones, and if you are a small site saving money using mostly non-cisco phone equipment then SIP is the way to go. I was just wondering if there was a reason to use SIP in a cisco environment over SCCP. So far all I get is "just cuz".

The reason people harp on about open standards isn't so much about someones OCD about being open, its about being able to pick the best vendor for the solution. Using proprietary protocols guarantees vendor lock-in.

In the past year I've seen a lot of people want to get more into OSPF, because Juniper and the like are getting quite up there. Anyone stuck with EIGRP has to do complex and/or inefficient redistribution or just deal with the fact they are stuck with EIGRP and therefore Cisco.

I can see the same thing here, using SIP would mean you'd be able to use the best vendor, not the best product that the one vendor you can support sells.

shodown

phoeneous wrote: »

So if I have an NEC system at one site and CUCM in another, I could run sip and have the two sites be able to dial by extension? Sites are connected via p2p.

that is one way, or you could just have a T1 card to a cisco router from the NEC system and use H323/MGCP on the gateway. MGCP has QSIG built in where a different flavor of SIP might not support all telephony features in the way you need.

chmorin

stuh84 wrote: »

I can see the same thing here, using SIP would mean you'd be able to use the best vendor, not the best product that the one vendor you can support sells.

To my knowledge CUCM is actually quite good at allowing for interoperability between its standards and open standards. It is not like SCCP and SIP can not talk with each other through it. It isn't like you have to use SIP OR h.323 OR MGCP. It isn't like it is an all or nothing. You have have trunks going every which way interfacing with all kinds of different equipment. You can go to a different vendor PBX system with SIP phones, you can have SIP phones in your environment directly when not cisco, and you can use SCCP when it is. I don't see an issue 'supporting' other vendors if you choose to. Or am I being ignorant and missing something? I'm still terribly new.

If I am an all EIGRP network anyway, on that train of thought, what is keeping me from just redistributing that network to you into the OSPF network I am trying to communicate with? Nothing, to my knowledge.

EDIT:

You mentioned the redistribution issue. I suppose if you plan on splicing junos into your cisco network "here" and "there" then yeah, OSPF would have to happen for it not to be a huge pain in the butt. Personally, I prefer OSPF anyway. I was thinking of a border scenario.

stuh84

chmorin wrote: »

To my knowledge CUCM is actually quite good at allowing for interoperability between its standards and open standards. It is not like SCCP and SIP can not talk with each other through it. It isn't like you have to use SIP OR h.323 OR MGCP. It isn't like it is an all or nothing. You have have trunks going every which way interfacing with all kinds of different equipment. You can go to a different vendor PBX system with SIP phones, you can have SIP phones in your environment directly when not cisco, and you can use SCCP when it is. I don't see an issue 'supporting' other vendors if you choose to. Or am I being ignorant and missing something? I'm still terribly new.

If I am an all EIGRP network anyway, on that train of thought, what is keeping me from just redistributing that network to you into the OSPF network I am trying to communicate with? Nothing, to my knowledge.

EDIT:

You mentioned the redistribution issue. I suppose if you plan on splicing junos into your cisco network "here" and "there" then yeah, OSPF would have to happen for it not to be a huge pain in the butt. Personally, I prefer OSPF anyway. I was thinking of a border scenario.

I'm not the biggest guy on voice if I'm honest so I may have been wrong on it being like EIGRP and OSPF. I'm guessing though that if something came out that was better than CUCM, you'd have to change to SIP anyway at that point.

As for the OSPF vs EIGRP thing, you kinda got it, in a mixed environment rather than passing off at a border, it causes issues. We're slowly getting Junipers into our network here from what was mainly Cisco, and we have a lot of EIGRP and almost zilch OSPF, so its going to require a lot of thought to include these Junipers in (as they are going to run at the core and as CPEs in places). This is why I'm a fan of open standards to begin with, as you don't get locked in.

shodown

on your redistribute question you loose a lot of critical routing info when you do that. For small sites no big deal most of the time, for massive WAN's you have people that will redistribute BGP into anohther protocol and then it looses its attribuites and comes out another way and guess what??? Routing Loop. I see this happen in networks that run BGP in private AS'es in there network. As far as the OSPF/EIGRP redistrubution you don't loose much, but it just gets messy, then you have to have a bunch of statics going in the opposite direction which becomes a pain to manage. Nothing I hate worse than logging into a network to T/S and the 1st things I see if a couple of pages of static routes.

chmorin

shodown wrote: »

on your redistribute question you loose a lot of critical routing info when you do that. For small sites no big deal most of the time, for massive WAN's you have people that will redistribute BGP into anohther protocol and then it looses its attribuites and comes out another way and guess what??? Routing Loop. I see this happen in networks that run BGP in private AS'es in there network. As far as the OSPF/EIGRP redistrubution you don't loose much, but it just gets messy, then you have to have a bunch of statics going in the opposite direction which becomes a pain to manage. Nothing I hate worse than logging into a network to T/S and the 1st things I see if a couple of pages of static routes.

Oh wow I never thought about that in redistribution, because I have stayed away from BGP. That really is a big flaw. Interesting.

You would hate our core then =p We have TONS of static routes. But they are all P2P via VPN to nodes that dont support routing protocols, so I'm not sure of a better way to do it. I didn't configure it that way, but I can't really think of another way to go at it either.

phoeneous

pitviper wrote: »

Depends on the model but theoretically yes. I’ve done (well, fixed anyways) SiP trunks between NEC Aspire’s before.

Can you provide more detail? We are in the process of converting from Aspires to CUCM but I'm stuck as to do it all at once or in pieces. If I do it in sections per site, I'd prefer not to lose direct dial functionality because my users are spoiled... I have the assistance of an NEC and Cisco vendor for this project.

chmorin

phoeneous wrote: »

Can you provide more detail? We are in the process of converting from Aspires to CUCM but I'm stuck as to do it all at once or in pieces. If I do it in sections per site, I'd prefer not to lose direct dial functionality because my users are spoiled... I have the assistance of an NEC and Cisco vendor for this project.

Hopefully viper can help more, but you would configure a trunk from your cluster pointed at the PBX device you are going to. That device will probably need to be configured to receive the trunk, which is unique to the device probably. Then you should be able to make a route pattern to forward XXXX (w/e it may be) out that sip trunk to the PBX over there (and vice versa).

Or you can be crazy gimp and make translation patterns translate XXXX to the 7/9/10 digit number it needs to be and send it out the PSTN as a temporary fix. You would need to do the same for the PBX on the other side too to create the psuedo 4 digit dialing. I wouldn't do that though unless no means of trunking works and your users are really nasty. Just because it feels... wrong to do it that way.

mikej412

While it might have been great (for Cisco) if the world had embraced Cisco's RFCs, I got the impression when I studied for the old old CCVP (or was it the old old old CCVP?) that someday SIP -- when it grew up -- would probably take over the voice world. But that was before Cisco Marketing seemed to take an interest in the Cisco Certification Program as a marketing tool.

dbelski

I was just wornering if this is possiable to do.

chmorin were you able to get aspire to communicate with CUCM.

Any instruction you may have would be great.

chmorin

dbelski wrote: »

I was just wornering if this is possiable to do.

chmorin were you able to get aspire to communicate with CUCM.

Any instruction you may have would be great.

It was actually phoeneous who was doing the conversion, I simply provided generic instructions on how to use a SIP trunk. He could probably better answer the question.

phoeneous

dbelski wrote: »

I was just wornering if this is possiable to do.

chmorin were you able to get aspire to communicate with CUCM.

Any instruction you may have would be great.

My solution for you is to get rid of the Aspire

That's what we are doing. It's archaic and useless if you want to scale and do cool things like video teleconferencing.

dbelski

Well we are getting ride of the Aspire but its taking too long. We have probably about 25 sites that have aspire or ux5000 NEC PBX
SO I was wondering if there is an easy way to get some temporarily, inter office communication going.
I have CUCM experience but almost none on NEC.
I know they support SIP trunk. How to get a trunk up between a remoter site and CUCM?

shodown

dbelski wrote: »

Well we are getting ride of the Aspire but its taking too long. We have probably about 25 sites that have aspire or ux5000 NEC PBX
SO I was wondering if there is an easy way to get some temporarily, inter office communication going.
I have CUCM experience but almost none on NEC.
I know they support SIP trunk. How to get a trunk up between a remoter site and CUCM?

If you have 25 sites thats going to be a nightmare if they have there own systems. What I would do if I had 25 different sites is that if they have a separate routers I would point the phone system to the router and run MGCP from the call manager so you can use QSIG and get all the feature support across the board.

chmorin

dbelski wrote: »

I know they support SIP trunk. How to get a trunk up between a remoter site and CUCM?

The first thing that needs to happen is to establish your WAN. This can be done through an expensive managed MPLS network or even VPN if they are smaller sites and you have equipment that can support IPSEC or OpenVPN. There are many other choices, talk to a WAN provider and they will sell you dozens.

Once you get the WAN up, you can configure the trunk just as you would normally in CUCM to a destination on net.

What I would do if I had 25 different sites is that if they have a separate routers I would point the phone system to the router and run MGCP from the call manager so you can use QSIG and get all the feature support across the board.

Assuming he has Cisco gateways on the border of each of the 25 sites, that would be a wonderful choice. I find that a little unlikely, since most people have those phone systems because they could not afford Cisco equipment.

Either way, it sounds like you have a rather large project in front of you.

shodown

Thats correct, but if they are phasing those systems out they will prob buy a Cisco routers anyway to centralize the deployment. This is not really taught much in the newer deployments, but the 1st part is getting cisco routers to connect them to the WAN. If they can't do that the other option would be to do some type of H323 setup. The problem with that is that they would have to do gatekeeper which would be easy for someone with VOICE experience, but a nightmare for someone without it, the problem with that is that they would loose a lot of capabilities for calls across the wan, but the same thing would happen with SIP if the flavors of it didn't match up.

tokhss

Showdown.. im starting to feel your pain with SIP... just to many carriers and all of them do it slightly differently.

Long live ISDN and H323!

on a side note.. the company i work for plans on doing a sip overhaul and converting EVERYTHING to SIP.. nutz.

pitviper

Some of the more relevant Aspires (last 4 or so years) have tons of options. The ones that I worked with had TDM phones, but also IP connectivity. They also ran as NECs version of H.323 (which for us didn’t actually work as the standards based protocol should). The key is to find a GOOD NEC tech. Also, lots of the typical proprietary “you need this specific card” and “you need to license this specific option”. The NEC forums don’t help much, especially if you ask for help and mention “Cisco” or “integration”…