What is the story with MGCP?

nellocon

Right here goes my rant...I seem to be encountering a lot of trouble with MGCP, in particular getting a PRI line to register as an endpoint in the CM. Of the last three site installs I have done, I have had a hair-pulling experience each time. My problem seems to always be the same, I cannot get the PRI endpoint to remain 'Registered' to the CM.

See a discussion here that I started which contains the config of my gateway...I simply cannot pinpoint my problem that is driving me crazy...
https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3379605#3379605

I would be very interested to hear others opinions on MGCP as a protocol and if you have encountered similar troubles. Or even better, suggest a solution to my issue!

Thanks

shodown

MGCP sucks big time due to the reliance on call manager.

I hate it with a passion, all of my larger customers seem to want it due to the ease of configuration.


I usually do h323 if not asked. I use a spreadsheet where I have all of the dial-peers organized, and I find it pretty easy to update. All in all I avoid MGCP like a plague.

nellocon

I am glad to hear that I am not the only one struggling with this...If I could go h323 with all site installs then I reckon I probably would but unfortunately, we are pushed to go with MGCP...

I have to try to find a solution to my problem though because until I can find out why the PRI endpoint will not register I am going to have a nightmare each and everytime I have a new project...I am going back to the router on Monday and I am going to wipe the config completely...then I am going to re-configure and add it to CM again, if it doesnt work this time I am going to open a TAC case because I desperately need an answer to this

shodown

Well I actually don't struggle with it:), I just don't like it. What you can always do is restart the MGCP process that usually works for me when I have a correctly configured PRI and its not working.

I'm not to sure why you are pushed to go MGCP? It does have the ability for easier dial-plans and this will be key if you are in a large site with a small staff. Some of my larger clients back in the day that had IT guys at all the large sites could deal with having h323. Other customers had all there VOIP guys at 1 site, but they supported over 100 sites so I can see where doing it all from call manager was in there benfit.

Flyingput

I have done this: removed MGCP and rebuilt the gateway in H.323.

Similar in SIP: pls pls get a CUBE in the middle of CUCM & Telco. LOL

Luckycharms

Not getting into the GW vs GW conversation. But I did look at your configuration on your gateway and its not going to keep you from registering but you have two very different ISDN switch types configured and with out knowing more about your UCM setup I would start looking at DBreplication issues for you registration issues. - Don't trust the webpage either.

Turgon

Cisco voice solutions suck. Try Avaya.

burbankmarc

Turgon wrote: »

Cisco voice solutions suck. Try Avaya.

We have Avaya and I tend to think they suck. Awful documentation. Our maintenance team (we contract with another company) is awful. They are all clueless. Any time we need to add a feature it seems like we need to buy 2-4 servers, and it takes the people (sometimes Avaya techs fly out) days - weeks just to figure out how to install the damn service.

*EDIT*

Perfect example:

We want to do carrier SIP into our PBX but Avaya is telling us we need to use a Session Border Controller. Which would be fine, but it's another 2 servers per facility (we have 2). Also, we need to purchase SIP licenses for the machines, AND IP licences on the back-end.

Way to go Avaya, I can't wait to see how many weeks it takes to properly install.

stlsmoore

I never touched Avaya but there's a lot of licensing and $$$ involved on enabling CUBE on Cisco Gateways for SIP as well at least with the latest IOS as far as I can tell. Thankfully there's no IP license or whatever needed or servers to be purchased.

pitviper

stlsmoore wrote: »

I never touched Avaya but there's a lot of licensing and $$$ involved on enabling CUBE on Cisco Gateways for SIP as well at least with the latest IOS as far as I can tell. Thankfully there's no IP license or whatever needed or servers to be purchased.

Ain’t that the truth – data and session licenses on top of the standard ISO feature licenses and so on. This fist BOM that I saw with w/ IOS 15/ISR2 CUBE left me scratching my head and trying to figure out how I could justify the cost to management!

burbankmarc

Avaya is charging for triple licenses. They're pushing for their phones to register to a CCT server which then connects to a CC server which then connects to the PBX. So you're getting license fees on CCT, then CC, then the PBX.

Not only that but Avaya training is bananas. They don't have any books so the only training you can get is from somewhere like global knowledge, or direct from Avaya. I looked into it and for JUST the Avaya Contact Center training they're charging 40k. WTF?

makrand

i have also faced the same problem . where call lands on the gateway but dosent rings the extension. MGCP stuck in active state. Only way to get rid of this is as follow.
1. Reset the PRI on which call is landing. if not work then
2. No MGCP command and again MGCP if not work then
3.NO CCM-Manager config server and again put same comand back.
if not work then restart the VG

pitviper

This is unfortunately not uncommon = which is why all of our gateways are h323 exclusively!

shodown

I had a decent sized customer recently who had a stuck FXS port. I had to restart the MGCP process to get that port back. I also took down 4 PRI's in the process due to that FXS port being so critical. They eventually learn.

stlsmoore

chiming in again, last week we rebooted our CUCM's; every MGCP voice gateway with PRI's wigged out and wouldn't register until rebooting them one by one. I was on the fence but for my new sites I'm using H.323 and I want to eventually circle back around and get the other gateways on H.323.