Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
I definitely prefer a physical phone to a soft phone! Kind of a bit off topic, have you guys seen this: http://www.shoretel.com/about/newsroom/press_releases/New_ShoreTel_Dock_Transforms_iPad_and_iPhone_Into_Desk_Phone_.html I was just telling my buddy how Cisco had such a great idea with the Cius but missed out by trying to create their own tablet, and then I see an advertisement for this. If Cisco had only provided the dock for and already super competitive tablet/smartphone market, it would have been brilliant! I'm surprised Shoretel seems to be the only company that sees the opportunity here. Vendors can keep making money on hardware but provide a unified client experience across all platforms (Jabber). It's the best of both worlds! On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Michael Davis wrote: > No matter what, there will ALWAYS been a need for large scale Enterprise > voice systems. I am one of those people, and I am sure I am not alone, I > will always want a physical phone. I am also one of these engineers who > will always recommned a system that is directly under your own site's > controll. Clouds are great, but they have their place. I don't think > telecom will ever be a total cloud based solution. > >*From:* Bill Lake > *To:* Drake J > *Cc:* "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" > *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore? > > As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > Profitability > > At this time these applications are not there. > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bill Lake wrote: > > As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > > > hi Laksh, > > Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always > good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about > Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with > Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video > out too depicting their solution... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk > > > Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open > source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff > expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more > complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a > real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide > spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. > > > Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments > as well. > > > Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > > Hi Drake, > > I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, > we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in > future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not > sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to > CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. > > Regard, > > Laksh > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing > and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming > up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a > disruptive analysis : > > > http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 > > > Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of > brainstorming . > > Thanks guys for your responses again. > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > > Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but > a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only > appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need > to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we > don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but > still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for > the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC > was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to > work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... > http://www.webrtc.org/faq > > You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > > > hi All, > > > Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at the > UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that > the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is > the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations > just need to code th
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
+1, although large scale will be something like 20k+ phones. Many small and mid-size companies will move to cloud eventually, given the cost savings with infrastructure/IT. Office 365 is an example. On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Michael Davis wrote: > No matter what, there will ALWAYS been a need for large scale Enterprise > voice systems. I am one of those people, and I am sure I am not alone, I will > always want a physical phone. I am also one of these engineers who will > always recommned a system that is directly under your own site's controll. > Clouds are great, but they have their place. I don't think telecom will ever > be a total cloud based solution. > > From: Bill Lake > To: Drake J > Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore? > > As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > Profitability > > At this time these applications are not there. > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bill Lake wrote: > As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > > hi Laksh, > > Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always > good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about > Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with Webrtc > solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video out too > depicting their solution... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk > > > Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open source > and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff expertise > required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more complex > network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a real > killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide spread > of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. > > > Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments as > well. > > > Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > Hi Drake, > > I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, we > should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in future > I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not sure > though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to CUCM. > I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. > > Regard, > > Laksh > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing and > and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming up > with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a disruptive > analysis : > > http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 > > > Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of > brainstorming . > > Thanks guys for your responses again. > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but a > Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only appeal to > the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need to use UC > hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we don't use > Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but still Cisco > uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for the web that > enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC was that easy > that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to work this hard > for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... > http://www.webrtc.org/faq > > You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > > hi All, > > > Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at the UC > and networking trends worldwide it appears that > the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is > the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations > just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. > > Here is the presentation that Google recently made > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk > > > Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be > losing out in year 2014. > > > Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost involved > in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . > > > Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth anymore? > > > -Drake > >
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
No matter what, there will ALWAYS been a need for large scale Enterprise voice systems. I am one of those people, and I am sure I am not alone, I will always want a physical phone. I am also one of these engineers who will always recommned a system that is directly under your own site's controll. Clouds are great, but they have their place. I don't think telecom will ever be a total cloud based solution. From: Bill Lake To: Drake J Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore? As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: Stability Scalability Profitability At this time these applications are not there. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bill Lake wrote: As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > > > >On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > >> >>hi Laksh, >> >>Thanks for your inputs here. This was a good discussion. It is always >>good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about >>Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with Webrtc >>solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video out too >>depicting their solution... >> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk >> >> >>Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open source >>and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff expertise >>required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more complex >>network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a real >>killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide spread >>of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. >> >> >>Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments as >>well. >> >> >>Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >> >>Hi Drake, >>> >>> >>>I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, we >>>should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >>>future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >>>sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >>>CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >>> >>> >>>Regard, >>> >>> >>>Laksh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >>> >>>Hi Guys, Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a disruptive analysis : http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of brainstorming . Thanks guys for your responses again. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... http://www.webrtc.org/faq > > >You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. > > > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > > >>hi All, >> >> >> >>Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at the >>UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that >>the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is >>the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations >>just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. >> >>Here is the presentation that Google recently made >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk >> >> >>Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be >>losing out in year 2014. >> >> >>Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost involved >>in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . >> >> >>Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth anymore? >> >>
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
Hi Drake, That's an interesting point. I've definitely heard of Microsoft creating such road blocks and I know first hand that Internet Explorer loves to be different when it comes to web programming. Here's a funny take on MS (with a measure of truth): "A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition." I've spent some time in Cisco's Jabber CAXL library which is about 40k lines of Javascript and while it's not truly WebRTC, they're really pushing for developers to integrate voice/video/im into the browser. From what I know of Cisco, they seem to typically be in support of standardizations and often incubate technology and then release for standardization. I could be way off on that one so feel free to disagree. Browser support is a big issue too since only the modern browsers are supporting it, it's going to be a while before the desktop/laptop world is fully ready but since mobile devices are refreshed so often they're typically pretty up to date and should support it now and if not soon. The bottom line for me is that competition breeds innovation so any company that blocks legitimate advances to protect their own profits will ultimately fail. Karma has no menu, you get served what you deserve! Marty On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Drake J wrote: > Hello Martin, > > Thanks for your inputs. > > > Food for thought - the UC vendors otherwise rivals when it comes to > competition seem to team up against Open source projects in the > World Wide Web Consortium ( W3C) and keep causing roadblocks > in the standardization of Webrtc. Why? it seems like it threatens > their own products . > > However open source communities such as Mozilla are fighting hard > to push this through. > > The Future definitely has a lot in store for IP Telephony. > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Martin Sloan wrote: > >> Let me just say that I love this thread! >> >> @Laksh about Asterisk, from my experience you'll be hard pressed to find >> anything (non-proprietary) that Cisco UC can do that Asterisk cannot. >> Complex dial plans, feature rich VM, native call recording, mobility, etc - >> Asterisk can do it all straight out of the box. That being said I only use >> Asterisk to fill in gaps when there is something that Cisco UC can't do >> easily or without costing a small fortune, since Asterisk can do it for >> free. Being an open source platform, if the feature doesn't exist you can >> code it yourself. I've never deployed it as an overall solution but just >> as a tool to fix a problem. I know there are some large(ish) SP's using >> Asterisk like SIP-UA, so I believe it has the ability to scale although I >> can't attest to that myself. In comparing reliability, there have been >> some kludge versions of CUCM out there as well so depending on who you talk >> to about Asterisk, you might get mixed results. I have never had a problem >> with it's reliability, outside of problems I've caused myself :-) >> >> If you're interested in a nice introduction to Asterisk without having to >> use the somewhat cryptic config files, download Elastix and deploy as a >> VM. It runs on CentOS with a GUI and it's really straight forward to >> setup. Use 'Elastix without tears' as a guide, although it's a little >> dated 95% of the info is accurate. You can get a free SIP trunk to the >> cloud using SIP-UA. >> >> I think Asterisk and it's soft-switch cousin FreeSwitch are going to >> become more and more popular. I've personally spoken with 3 tech start-up >> companies that are providing web-based telephony services using FreeSwitch ( >> https://www.speek.com & http://anymeeting.com & http://www.voysee.com) >> and I'm sure there are many more out there on the rise. Just like moving >> from a CO where an operator was physically plugging in cables to connect >> calls all the way up to our current IP infrastructure, the industry >> continues to change and advance so it's up to us to stay relevant. That's >> the thing I like most about Telephony/VoIP/UC/Collaboration is that even >> though it continues to evolve and update, until humans start using ESP to >> communicate it's going to remain absolutely necessary, which means >> (hopefully) a job for us! >> >> Marty >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Drake J wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> hi Laksh, >>> >>> Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is >>> always good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking >>> about Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with >>> Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video >>> out too depicting their solution... >>> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk >>> >>> >>> Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open >>>
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 90, Issue 52
I ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
Hello Martin, Thanks for your inputs. Food for thought - the UC vendors otherwise rivals when it comes to competition seem to team up against Open source projects in the World Wide Web Consortium ( W3C) and keep causing roadblocks in the standardization of Webrtc. Why? it seems like it threatens their own products . However open source communities such as Mozilla are fighting hard to push this through. The Future definitely has a lot in store for IP Telephony. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Martin Sloan wrote: > Let me just say that I love this thread! > > @Laksh about Asterisk, from my experience you'll be hard pressed to find > anything (non-proprietary) that Cisco UC can do that Asterisk cannot. > Complex dial plans, feature rich VM, native call recording, mobility, etc - > Asterisk can do it all straight out of the box. That being said I only use > Asterisk to fill in gaps when there is something that Cisco UC can't do > easily or without costing a small fortune, since Asterisk can do it for > free. Being an open source platform, if the feature doesn't exist you can > code it yourself. I've never deployed it as an overall solution but just > as a tool to fix a problem. I know there are some large(ish) SP's using > Asterisk like SIP-UA, so I believe it has the ability to scale although I > can't attest to that myself. In comparing reliability, there have been > some kludge versions of CUCM out there as well so depending on who you talk > to about Asterisk, you might get mixed results. I have never had a problem > with it's reliability, outside of problems I've caused myself :-) > > If you're interested in a nice introduction to Asterisk without having to > use the somewhat cryptic config files, download Elastix and deploy as a > VM. It runs on CentOS with a GUI and it's really straight forward to > setup. Use 'Elastix without tears' as a guide, although it's a little > dated 95% of the info is accurate. You can get a free SIP trunk to the > cloud using SIP-UA. > > I think Asterisk and it's soft-switch cousin FreeSwitch are going to > become more and more popular. I've personally spoken with 3 tech start-up > companies that are providing web-based telephony services using FreeSwitch ( > https://www.speek.com & http://anymeeting.com & http://www.voysee.com) > and I'm sure there are many more out there on the rise. Just like moving > from a CO where an operator was physically plugging in cables to connect > calls all the way up to our current IP infrastructure, the industry > continues to change and advance so it's up to us to stay relevant. That's > the thing I like most about Telephony/VoIP/UC/Collaboration is that even > though it continues to evolve and update, until humans start using ESP to > communicate it's going to remain absolutely necessary, which means > (hopefully) a job for us! > > Marty > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > >> >> >> hi Laksh, >> >> Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is >> always good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking >> about Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with >> Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video >> out too depicting their solution... >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk >> >> >> Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open >> source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff >> expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more >> complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a >> real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide >> spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. >> >> >> Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments >> as well. >> >> >> Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >> >>> Hi Drake, >>> >>> I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, >>> we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >>> future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >>> sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >>> CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >>> >>> Regard, >>> >>> Laksh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >>> Hi Guys, Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a disruptive analysis : http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought o
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Fwd: LAN QoS Basics
Hi I think your suggestion solved it, I will test it more thoroughly and will keep you posted. Thank you very much Regards S Wilson Sent from my Windows Phone -- From: Somphol Boonjing Sent: 8/29/2013 3:03 AM To: Sam Wilson Cc: OSL Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Fwd: LAN QoS Basics Hi Sam, I think I came across similar error message. You may want to adjust your Voice-Sig class-map as following: ! class-map match-any Voice-Sig match ip dscp cs3 af31 <=== list them in the same line class-map match-any Voice-RTP match ip dscp ef ! On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Sam Wilson wrote: > ! > class-map match-any Voice-Sig > match ip dscp cs3 > match ip dscp af31 > class-map match-any Voice-RTP > match ip dscp ef > ! > --Somphol. ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
Let me just say that I love this thread! @Laksh about Asterisk, from my experience you'll be hard pressed to find anything (non-proprietary) that Cisco UC can do that Asterisk cannot. Complex dial plans, feature rich VM, native call recording, mobility, etc - Asterisk can do it all straight out of the box. That being said I only use Asterisk to fill in gaps when there is something that Cisco UC can't do easily or without costing a small fortune, since Asterisk can do it for free. Being an open source platform, if the feature doesn't exist you can code it yourself. I've never deployed it as an overall solution but just as a tool to fix a problem. I know there are some large(ish) SP's using Asterisk like SIP-UA, so I believe it has the ability to scale although I can't attest to that myself. In comparing reliability, there have been some kludge versions of CUCM out there as well so depending on who you talk to about Asterisk, you might get mixed results. I have never had a problem with it's reliability, outside of problems I've caused myself :-) If you're interested in a nice introduction to Asterisk without having to use the somewhat cryptic config files, download Elastix and deploy as a VM. It runs on CentOS with a GUI and it's really straight forward to setup. Use 'Elastix without tears' as a guide, although it's a little dated 95% of the info is accurate. You can get a free SIP trunk to the cloud using SIP-UA. I think Asterisk and it's soft-switch cousin FreeSwitch are going to become more and more popular. I've personally spoken with 3 tech start-up companies that are providing web-based telephony services using FreeSwitch ( https://www.speek.com & http://anymeeting.com & http://www.voysee.com) and I'm sure there are many more out there on the rise. Just like moving from a CO where an operator was physically plugging in cables to connect calls all the way up to our current IP infrastructure, the industry continues to change and advance so it's up to us to stay relevant. That's the thing I like most about Telephony/VoIP/UC/Collaboration is that even though it continues to evolve and update, until humans start using ESP to communicate it's going to remain absolutely necessary, which means (hopefully) a job for us! Marty On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > > hi Laksh, > > Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always > good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about > Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with > Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video > out too depicting their solution... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk > > > Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open > source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff > expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more > complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a > real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide > spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. > > > Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments > as well. > > > Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > >> Hi Drake, >> >> I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, >> we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >> future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >> sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >> CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >> >> Regard, >> >> Laksh >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing >>> and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming >>> up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a >>> disruptive analysis : >>> >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 >>> >>> >>> Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of >>> brainstorming . >>> >>> Thanks guys for your responses again. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >>> Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for the web that enables Real Time Communications in the brows
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: Stability Scalability Profitability At this time these applications are not there. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bill Lake wrote: > As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: > Stability > Scalability > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > >> >> >> hi Laksh, >> >> Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is >> always good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking >> about Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with >> Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video >> out too depicting their solution... >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk >> >> >> Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open >> source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff >> expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more >> complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a >> real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide >> spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. >> >> >> Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments >> as well. >> >> >> Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >> >>> Hi Drake, >>> >>> I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, >>> we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >>> future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >>> sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >>> CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >>> >>> Regard, >>> >>> Laksh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >>> Hi Guys, Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a disruptive analysis : http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of brainstorming . Thanks guys for your responses again. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing > but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only > appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still > need > to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we > don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, > but > still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework > for the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only > UC was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have > to work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... > http://www.webrtc.org/faq > > You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > >> >> hi All, >> >> >> Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at >> the UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that >> the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is >> the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations >> just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. >> >> Here is the presentation that Google recently made >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk >> >> >> Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be >> losing out in year 2014. >> >> >> Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost >> involved >> in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . >> >> >> Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth >> anymore? >> >> >> -Drake >> >> >> >> ___ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >> please visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >> > > >>> >> >> ___ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >> > > __
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
Drake I can tell you that there is a big push to put more services in the cloud at major SPs. UCS platforms has made it easier to host multiple customers in a multi-tenant environment and provide customers their own dedicated voice and video application customized to each customer. Video is definitely a growth area the high end video conferencing using dedicated rooms with equipment worth 200-300k is a niche market, growth is in the desktop, mobile areas. EJ On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > > hi Laksh, > > Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always > good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about > Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with > Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video > out too depicting their solution... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk > > > Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open > source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff > expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more > complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a > real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide > spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. > > > Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments > as well. > > > Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > >> Hi Drake, >> >> I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, >> we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >> future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >> sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >> CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >> >> Regard, >> >> Laksh >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing >>> and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming >>> up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a >>> disruptive analysis : >>> >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 >>> >>> >>> Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of >>> brainstorming . >>> >>> Thanks guys for your responses again. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >>> Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... http://www.webrtc.org/faq You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > > hi All, > > > Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at > the UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that > the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is > the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations > just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. > > Here is the presentation that Google recently made > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk > > > Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be > losing out in year 2014. > > > Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost involved > in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . > > > Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth > anymore? > > > -Drake > > > > ___ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > >>> >> > > ___ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > _
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
As a former big Telco employee, they want three things: Stability Scalability On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Drake J wrote: > > > hi Laksh, > > Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always > good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about > Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with > Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video > out too depicting their solution... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk > > > Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open > source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff > expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more > complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a > real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide > spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. > > > Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments > as well. > > > Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > >> Hi Drake, >> >> I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, >> we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in >> future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not >> sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to >> CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. >> >> Regard, >> >> Laksh >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing >>> and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming >>> up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a >>> disruptive analysis : >>> >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 >>> >>> >>> Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of >>> brainstorming . >>> >>> Thanks guys for your responses again. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >>> Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... http://www.webrtc.org/faq You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: > > hi All, > > > Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at > the UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that > the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is > the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations > just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. > > Here is the presentation that Google recently made > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk > > > Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be > losing out in year 2014. > > > Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost involved > in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . > > > Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth > anymore? > > > -Drake > > > > ___ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > >>> >> > > ___ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Is the CCIE voice worth anymore?
hi Laksh, Thanks for your inputs here.This was a good discussion. It is always good for us to all know about things that happen outside . Talking about Telco OTTs we can already see few of the Telcos have come out with Webrtc solutions for enterprise and service providers . Check this video out too depicting their solution... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz-BQZMp3sk Most of these applications written on software are supposed to open source and left for the users to customize . No real networking staff expertise required just download the SDK/API and customize and no more complex network topologies in future. Also no licensing fee too . Hence a real killer of techology in the future most likely we will see a wide spread of this starting 2014 if all predictions are to be believed. Hope someone from any of the TELCOs on this alias can add a few comments as well. Thanks once again for your inputs everyone. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: > Hi Drake, > > I totally understand your concern, I'd be worried too. Having said that, > we should always update ourselves with the latest technology. However, in > future I believe Asterisk might be able to give tough run to Cisco UC. Not > sure though, I hear stories that it is unstable and featureless compared to > CUCM. I hope if someone aware of Asterisk would help us out here. > > Regard, > > Laksh > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Drake J wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> Thanks for your responses I see u guys have empathized on call routing >> and and UC hardware for backend deployments. However Telco OTTs are coming >> up with directly provide these services over the cloud . Here is a >> disruptive analysis : >> >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/deanb/disruptive-analysis-web-rtc-overview-april-2013 >> >> >> Anyways, this might be not be so serious afterall . Just thought of >> brainstorming . >> >> Thanks guys for your responses again. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Lakshmish NS wrote: >> >>> Didn't have time to go through the video, I believe WebRTC is nothing >>> but a Protocol, similar to SIP, H.323. Moreover, this protocol would only >>> appeal to the Web audience, just like Skype, or Google talk. You still need >>> to use UC hardware and their design for enterprise deployments. I mean we >>> don't use Google talk and Skype in companies right? SIP is open source, but >>> still Cisco uses it. As FAQ's suggest "WebRTC is an open framework for >>> the web that enables Real Time Communications in the browser". If only UC >>> was that easy that could be implemented through browser, we didn't have to >>> work this hard for CCIE numbers. You might want to go through this... >>> http://www.webrtc.org/faq >>> >>> You've clearly misinterpreted WebRTC here.. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Drake J wrote: >>> hi All, Had a troubling question hence thought of putting it out .Looking at the UC and networking trends worldwide it appears that the future of UC and collaboration is web based. Webrtc is the protocol that the world will use and individuals and organizations just need to code their requirement based on the WEBRTC. Here is the presentation that Google recently made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C8ouiXHHk Clearly many of the UC vendors are already losing out and will be losing out in year 2014. Most of the customers are already looking at reducing the cost involved in maintaining costly UC vendor networks and their networking staff . Therefore that brings me to my question is the CCIE voice worth anymore? -Drake ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >>> >> > ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Multicast MoH.
Do you have the command "ccm-manager music-on-hold" applied? Even on h323 this command is required for pstn multicast moh On Aug 28, 2013 5:12 PM, "Alex Mendoza" wrote: > Hi All. > > Is there a solution on this... > > GW (h323) is configured with Outbound Fast Start using IOS MTP software > and is working good. > >- "Media Termination Point Required" box checked >- "Enable Outbound FastStart" box checked with G711u-law 64K > > > Also, I configure Multicast MoH for this site and is working good for > calls from other IP Phones on the cluster. > > but PSTN calls trough this h323 GW is not, when I place the call on hold, > PSTN caller hear unicast moh. > > To solve this issue, I need to remove MTP required form H323 CUCM config. > > I see this is an expected behavior, see the note from cisco doc. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/7_1_2/ccmfeat/fsmoh.html > *Note *The following restriction exists for multicast music on hold (MOH) > when a media termination point (MTP) is invoked. When an MTP resource gets > invoked in a call leg at a site that is using multicast MOH, the caller > receives silence instead o music on hold. To avoid this scenario, configure > unicast MOH or Tone on Hold instead of multicast MOH. > > > Is there a trick to get multicast on a PSTN call, when "MTP required" is > active on H323 GW? > > > Any thoughts? > Alex > > ___ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Fwd: LAN QoS Basics
Hi Sam, I think I came across similar error message. You may want to adjust your Voice-Sig class-map as following: ! class-map match-any Voice-Sig match ip dscp cs3 af31 <=== list them in the same line class-map match-any Voice-RTP match ip dscp ef ! On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Sam Wilson wrote: > ! > class-map match-any Voice-Sig > match ip dscp cs3 > match ip dscp af31 > class-map match-any Voice-RTP > match ip dscp ef > ! > --Somphol. ___ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
