cisco 831 and callmanger VOIP

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by Jimmyzshack, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Jimmyzshack

    Jimmyzshack Guest

    anyone have a remote office with like 10 people using VPN to your corp
    office using cisco's 831 router? If so could you answer a couple of
    questions for me.

    Are you using g.711 for the calls?
    is the call quailty good?
    What speed internet conections are you using up/down?

    We are looking at putting a remote office of 10 people on a cisco 831 vpn
    to our corp office connect to the internet with sdsl 1.5u/1.5d.
    thanks for any replies.

    e-mail:

    jimmy dot riley at vericore dot com
    Jimmyzshack, Nov 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jimmyzshack

    aaaa Guest

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_tech_note09186a00800b6710.shtml

    no~ never use g.711, because the B/W consumption is 64K/Per Channel,

    Compression Method
    Bit Rate (kbps)
    MOS Score
    Compression Delay (ms)

    G.711 PCM
    64
    4.1
    0.75

    G.726 ADPCM
    32
    3.85
    1

    G.728 LD-CELP
    16
    3.61
    3 to 5

    G.729 CS-ACELP
    8
    3.92
    10

    G.729 x 2 Encodings
    8
    3.27
    10

    G.729 x 3 Encodings
    8
    2.68
    10

    G.729a CS-ACELP
    8
    3.7
    10

    G.723.1 MP-MLQ
    6.3
    3.9
    30

    G.723.1 ACELP
    5.3
    3.65
    30





    "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94379ED49DDB1JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    > anyone have a remote office with like 10 people using VPN to your corp
    > office using cisco's 831 router? If so could you answer a couple of
    > questions for me.
    >
    > Are you using g.711 for the calls?
    > is the call quailty good?
    > What speed internet conections are you using up/down?
    >
    > We are looking at putting a remote office of 10 people on a cisco 831 vpn
    > to our corp office connect to the internet with sdsl 1.5u/1.5d.
    > thanks for any replies.
    >
    > e-mail:
    >
    > jimmy dot riley at vericore dot com
    aaaa, Nov 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jimmyzshack

    Arcaidy Guest

    Why say never?
    Yes it uses a lot of bandwidth, but there are situations where it's better
    to use that 729. You list the other Codec's, but they are not compatible
    with Cisco's call manager. (Unless I am wrong).
    711 is alot more forgiving if you drop a few packets every now and then. You
    drop a few packets with 711 and there's a good chance you'll never hear it.
    With 729, you will notice something. You can also hear the difference when
    talking to someone within the same network. 711 sounds much clearer. But, I
    can't tell the difference once it goes outside the network.
    He has a full T up and down. Averaging 80Kbs per call, with everyone one the
    phone, you still have half of your bandwidth available.

    Put in some kind of QOS and I think you'll be fine. We have LLQ on ours and
    it does pretty good.

    Have you thought about putting in a 17XX or 26XX and putting in some FXO
    cards?
    You could just have control data for the phones going across the network and
    have the actual traffic going out the local gateways.
    You could still have inter office calling go across the net.


    Arcaidy.



    "aaaa" <> wrote in message
    news:bpg2rm$...
    >

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_tech_note09186a0080
    0b6710.shtml
    >
    > no~ never use g.711, because the B/W consumption is 64K/Per Channel,
    >
    > Compression Method
    > Bit Rate (kbps)
    > MOS Score
    > Compression Delay (ms)
    >
    > G.711 PCM
    > 64
    > 4.1
    > 0.75
    >
    > G.726 ADPCM
    > 32
    > 3.85
    > 1
    >
    > G.728 LD-CELP
    > 16
    > 3.61
    > 3 to 5
    >
    > G.729 CS-ACELP
    > 8
    > 3.92
    > 10
    >
    > G.729 x 2 Encodings
    > 8
    > 3.27
    > 10
    >
    > G.729 x 3 Encodings
    > 8
    > 2.68
    > 10
    >
    > G.729a CS-ACELP
    > 8
    > 3.7
    > 10
    >
    > G.723.1 MP-MLQ
    > 6.3
    > 3.9
    > 30
    >
    > G.723.1 ACELP
    > 5.3
    > 3.65
    > 30
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94379ED49DDB1JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    > > anyone have a remote office with like 10 people using VPN to your corp
    > > office using cisco's 831 router? If so could you answer a couple of
    > > questions for me.
    > >
    > > Are you using g.711 for the calls?
    > > is the call quailty good?
    > > What speed internet conections are you using up/down?
    > >
    > > We are looking at putting a remote office of 10 people on a cisco 831

    vpn
    > > to our corp office connect to the internet with sdsl 1.5u/1.5d.
    > > thanks for any replies.
    > >
    > > e-mail:
    > >
    > > jimmy dot riley at vericore dot com

    >
    >
    Arcaidy, Nov 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Jimmyzshack

    Jimmyzshack Guest

    Arcaidy, how many people do you have at your remote office? Are you
    doing VPN? What is the bandwidth speed on the remote office? thanks,

    All calls from this office will be long distance so we where just going
    to use the 831 back to the corp office to go out over our voice T-1's.
    Within a year they will be up to 20 people so we would be a voice t-1
    out at there location and just use the 831 (are maybe get a 17xx in the
    first place) for office to office calls.

    G.711 is the only thing the exec want to use b/c of the good voice
    quailty, they will pay more for bandwidth if needed to use it, but .729
    is ok for office to office calls.
    Jimmyzshack, Nov 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Jimmyzshack

    aaaa Guest

    Hi Arcaidy,

    Yes, you are right, suppose G711 is much clear than the other Codec's,
    but . . . um . . . .in the live situation, I can't hear the difference.

    I'm always use G723r63, it's good! ^_^

    putting in a FXO or FXS card into 17XX or 26XX is a good idea, but
    expensive, I will prefer some Analog GW have FXS or FXO ports X 2,
    it's much cheaper.


    "Arcaidy" <> wrote in message
    news:N_Oub.25075$Ro5.17415@fed1read07...
    > Why say never?
    > Yes it uses a lot of bandwidth, but there are situations where it's better
    > to use that 729. You list the other Codec's, but they are not compatible
    > with Cisco's call manager. (Unless I am wrong).
    > 711 is alot more forgiving if you drop a few packets every now and then.

    You
    > drop a few packets with 711 and there's a good chance you'll never hear

    it.
    > With 729, you will notice something. You can also hear the difference when
    > talking to someone within the same network. 711 sounds much clearer. But,

    I
    > can't tell the difference once it goes outside the network.
    > He has a full T up and down. Averaging 80Kbs per call, with everyone one

    the
    > phone, you still have half of your bandwidth available.
    >
    > Put in some kind of QOS and I think you'll be fine. We have LLQ on ours

    and
    > it does pretty good.
    >
    > Have you thought about putting in a 17XX or 26XX and putting in some FXO
    > cards?
    > You could just have control data for the phones going across the network

    and
    > have the actual traffic going out the local gateways.
    > You could still have inter office calling go across the net.
    >
    >
    > Arcaidy.
    >
    >
    >
    > "aaaa" <> wrote in message
    > news:bpg2rm$...
    > >

    >

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_tech_note09186a0080
    > 0b6710.shtml
    > >
    > > no~ never use g.711, because the B/W consumption is 64K/Per Channel,
    > >
    > > Compression Method
    > > Bit Rate (kbps)
    > > MOS Score
    > > Compression Delay (ms)
    > >
    > > G.711 PCM
    > > 64
    > > 4.1
    > > 0.75
    > >
    > > G.726 ADPCM
    > > 32
    > > 3.85
    > > 1
    > >
    > > G.728 LD-CELP
    > > 16
    > > 3.61
    > > 3 to 5
    > >
    > > G.729 CS-ACELP
    > > 8
    > > 3.92
    > > 10
    > >
    > > G.729 x 2 Encodings
    > > 8
    > > 3.27
    > > 10
    > >
    > > G.729 x 3 Encodings
    > > 8
    > > 2.68
    > > 10
    > >
    > > G.729a CS-ACELP
    > > 8
    > > 3.7
    > > 10
    > >
    > > G.723.1 MP-MLQ
    > > 6.3
    > > 3.9
    > > 30
    > >
    > > G.723.1 ACELP
    > > 5.3
    > > 3.65
    > > 30
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns94379ED49DDB1JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    > > > anyone have a remote office with like 10 people using VPN to your corp
    > > > office using cisco's 831 router? If so could you answer a couple of
    > > > questions for me.
    > > >
    > > > Are you using g.711 for the calls?
    > > > is the call quailty good?
    > > > What speed internet conections are you using up/down?
    > > >
    > > > We are looking at putting a remote office of 10 people on a cisco 831

    > vpn
    > > > to our corp office connect to the internet with sdsl 1.5u/1.5d.
    > > > thanks for any replies.
    > > >
    > > > e-mail:
    > > >
    > > > jimmy dot riley at vericore dot com

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    aaaa, Nov 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Jimmyzshack

    Arcaidy Guest

    In a "live" situation, I can hear the differnence. Like I stated above, from
    IP phone to IP phone, I can hear the difference between 711 and 729. As
    others I work can as well. IP phone to Analog phone, I can't hear the
    difference.
    I think something that is missing here is that I beleive JimmyZ is running a
    Cisco Call Manager installation. The only supported Codec's are 711 and 729.
    That goes for the analog gateways as well. You can get the ATA'a, but that
    does not solve the FXO issue.
    I guess it doesn't really matter now anyway since he's going to send
    everything over IP.






    "aaaa" <> wrote in message
    news:bpgvpq$...
    > Hi Arcaidy,
    >
    > Yes, you are right, suppose G711 is much clear than the other Codec's,
    > but . . . um . . . .in the live situation, I can't hear the difference.
    >
    > I'm always use G723r63, it's good! ^_^
    >
    > putting in a FXO or FXS card into 17XX or 26XX is a good idea, but
    > expensive, I will prefer some Analog GW have FXS or FXO ports X 2,
    > it's much cheaper.
    >
    >
    > "Arcaidy" <> wrote in message
    > news:N_Oub.25075$Ro5.17415@fed1read07...
    > > Why say never?
    > > Yes it uses a lot of bandwidth, but there are situations where it's

    better
    > > to use that 729. You list the other Codec's, but they are not

    compatible
    > > with Cisco's call manager. (Unless I am wrong).
    > > 711 is alot more forgiving if you drop a few packets every now and then.

    > You
    > > drop a few packets with 711 and there's a good chance you'll never hear

    > it.
    > > With 729, you will notice something. You can also hear the difference

    when
    > > talking to someone within the same network. 711 sounds much clearer.

    But,
    > I
    > > can't tell the difference once it goes outside the network.
    > > He has a full T up and down. Averaging 80Kbs per call, with everyone one

    > the
    > > phone, you still have half of your bandwidth available.
    > >
    > > Put in some kind of QOS and I think you'll be fine. We have LLQ on ours

    > and
    > > it does pretty good.
    > >
    > > Have you thought about putting in a 17XX or 26XX and putting in some FXO
    > > cards?
    > > You could just have control data for the phones going across the network

    > and
    > > have the actual traffic going out the local gateways.
    > > You could still have inter office calling go across the net.
    > >
    > >
    > > Arcaidy.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "aaaa" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bpg2rm$...
    > > >

    > >

    >

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_tech_note09186a0080
    > > 0b6710.shtml
    > > >
    > > > no~ never use g.711, because the B/W consumption is 64K/Per Channel,
    > > >
    > > > Compression Method
    > > > Bit Rate (kbps)
    > > > MOS Score
    > > > Compression Delay (ms)
    > > >
    > > > G.711 PCM
    > > > 64
    > > > 4.1
    > > > 0.75
    > > >
    > > > G.726 ADPCM
    > > > 32
    > > > 3.85
    > > > 1
    > > >
    > > > G.728 LD-CELP
    > > > 16
    > > > 3.61
    > > > 3 to 5
    > > >
    > > > G.729 CS-ACELP
    > > > 8
    > > > 3.92
    > > > 10
    > > >
    > > > G.729 x 2 Encodings
    > > > 8
    > > > 3.27
    > > > 10
    > > >
    > > > G.729 x 3 Encodings
    > > > 8
    > > > 2.68
    > > > 10
    > > >
    > > > G.729a CS-ACELP
    > > > 8
    > > > 3.7
    > > > 10
    > > >
    > > > G.723.1 MP-MLQ
    > > > 6.3
    > > > 3.9
    > > > 30
    > > >
    > > > G.723.1 ACELP
    > > > 5.3
    > > > 3.65
    > > > 30
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:Xns94379ED49DDB1JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    > > > > anyone have a remote office with like 10 people using VPN to your

    corp
    > > > > office using cisco's 831 router? If so could you answer a couple of
    > > > > questions for me.
    > > > >
    > > > > Are you using g.711 for the calls?
    > > > > is the call quailty good?
    > > > > What speed internet conections are you using up/down?
    > > > >
    > > > > We are looking at putting a remote office of 10 people on a cisco

    831
    > > vpn
    > > > > to our corp office connect to the internet with sdsl 1.5u/1.5d.
    > > > > thanks for any replies.
    > > > >
    > > > > e-mail:
    > > > >
    > > > > jimmy dot riley at vericore dot com
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Arcaidy, Nov 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Jimmyzshack

    Arcaidy Guest

    We don't use them for remote offices yet. We use them for home offices.
    Currently, there is only a phone and computer behind each. We use them over
    Basic DSL and cable modem. We VPN using EZVPN on the router. I have set the
    interface to 1 meg on the internet side. Then configured LLQ. I allowed
    enough for 2 calls and then 16k for control. Seems to work well. I was able
    to test with a call, downloading a couple large files from cisco. Was
    pulling down over a Meg, made a few phone calls and all worked well. There
    was a bit delay with calling a number, but the actual call worked fine.
    One thing we are looking at is putting a DSL and ISDN card in a 1700 so we
    could have basic failover. (if the DSL link went down, the ISDN would come
    up as a failover) You may want to test with 729. I doubt very much that an
    end user would be able to tell the difference.
    You can put call manager express on the 1700 also. It would support up to 24
    phones. It's just another option.





    "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9438933AE2574JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    >
    > Arcaidy, how many people do you have at your remote office? Are you
    > doing VPN? What is the bandwidth speed on the remote office? thanks,
    >
    > All calls from this office will be long distance so we where just going
    > to use the 831 back to the corp office to go out over our voice T-1's.
    > Within a year they will be up to 20 people so we would be a voice t-1
    > out at there location and just use the 831 (are maybe get a 17xx in the
    > first place) for office to office calls.
    >
    > G.711 is the only thing the exec want to use b/c of the good voice
    > quailty, they will pay more for bandwidth if needed to use it, but .729
    > is ok for office to office calls.
    Arcaidy, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Jimmyzshack

    Jimmyzshack Guest

    Thanks for the input. We are looking into CME but Cisco told me it'll be
    march of next year before CME and CCM will talk to each other over h323.
    Also this is a sales and collections office so the have phone time they
    have to make and i have to be able to to track it. I have a callaccounting
    software at the corp office that does it but i don't think it will work
    with CME. I plan on using EZVPN and "mode network-extension" the 831 and
    LLQ. Do you need the isp to do anything to use LLQ or does the routers do
    all of that?

    "Arcaidy" <> wrote in
    news::

    > We don't use them for remote offices yet. We use them for home
    > offices. Currently, there is only a phone and computer behind each. We
    > use them over Basic DSL and cable modem. We VPN using EZVPN on the
    > router. I have set the interface to 1 meg on the internet side. Then
    > configured LLQ. I allowed enough for 2 calls and then 16k for control.
    > Seems to work well. I was able to test with a call, downloading a
    > couple large files from cisco. Was pulling down over a Meg, made a few
    > phone calls and all worked well. There was a bit delay with calling a
    > number, but the actual call worked fine. One thing we are looking at
    > is putting a DSL and ISDN card in a 1700 so we could have basic
    > failover. (if the DSL link went down, the ISDN would come up as a
    > failover) You may want to test with 729. I doubt very much that an end
    > user would be able to tell the difference. You can put call manager
    > express on the 1700 also. It would support up to 24 phones. It's just
    > another option.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9438933AE2574JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    >>
    >> Arcaidy, how many people do you have at your remote office? Are you
    >> doing VPN? What is the bandwidth speed on the remote office? thanks,
    >>
    >> All calls from this office will be long distance so we where just
    >> going to use the 831 back to the corp office to go out over our voice
    >> T-1's. Within a year they will be up to 20 people so we would be a
    >> voice t-1 out at there location and just use the 831 (are maybe get a
    >> 17xx in the first place) for office to office calls.
    >>
    >> G.711 is the only thing the exec want to use b/c of the good voice
    >> quailty, they will pay more for bandwidth if needed to use it, but
    >> .729 is ok for office to office calls.

    >
    >
    Jimmyzshack, Nov 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Jimmyzshack

    Arcaidy Guest

    I'm not sure how call accounting would work on CME. That's an interesting
    point though.
    The ISP has nothing to do with QOS. I'm willing to bet that the only thing
    there willing to offer in that department is "best effort".
    You'll comfigure LLQ on both of your routers.

    I'm thinking you are in Florida... If I am wrong, sorry.
    But if you are and you are in Bell Souths area, they have a service they
    offer that put traffic on thier private network.
    Maybe be something to look at. You wouldn't have to compete with "internet"
    traffic and I think they off better SLA's. Current DSL here only comes with
    a 72 hour SLA.
    Thats unacceptable to some. Also, it would get rid of the need for VPN. It's
    built more like a Frame relay network. Kinda like a point to point.

    Arcaidy


    "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns943942C4BAC95jimmyzshackyahoocom@216.168.3.44...
    > Thanks for the input. We are looking into CME but Cisco told me it'll be
    > march of next year before CME and CCM will talk to each other over h323.
    > Also this is a sales and collections office so the have phone time they
    > have to make and i have to be able to to track it. I have a callaccounting
    > software at the corp office that does it but i don't think it will work
    > with CME. I plan on using EZVPN and "mode network-extension" the 831 and
    > LLQ. Do you need the isp to do anything to use LLQ or does the routers do
    > all of that?
    >
    > "Arcaidy" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > We don't use them for remote offices yet. We use them for home
    > > offices. Currently, there is only a phone and computer behind each. We
    > > use them over Basic DSL and cable modem. We VPN using EZVPN on the
    > > router. I have set the interface to 1 meg on the internet side. Then
    > > configured LLQ. I allowed enough for 2 calls and then 16k for control.
    > > Seems to work well. I was able to test with a call, downloading a
    > > couple large files from cisco. Was pulling down over a Meg, made a few
    > > phone calls and all worked well. There was a bit delay with calling a
    > > number, but the actual call worked fine. One thing we are looking at
    > > is putting a DSL and ISDN card in a 1700 so we could have basic
    > > failover. (if the DSL link went down, the ISDN would come up as a
    > > failover) You may want to test with 729. I doubt very much that an end
    > > user would be able to tell the difference. You can put call manager
    > > express on the 1700 also. It would support up to 24 phones. It's just
    > > another option.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns9438933AE2574JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    > >>
    > >> Arcaidy, how many people do you have at your remote office? Are you
    > >> doing VPN? What is the bandwidth speed on the remote office? thanks,
    > >>
    > >> All calls from this office will be long distance so we where just
    > >> going to use the 831 back to the corp office to go out over our voice
    > >> T-1's. Within a year they will be up to 20 people so we would be a
    > >> voice t-1 out at there location and just use the 831 (are maybe get a
    > >> 17xx in the first place) for office to office calls.
    > >>
    > >> G.711 is the only thing the exec want to use b/c of the good voice
    > >> quailty, they will pay more for bandwidth if needed to use it, but
    > >> .729 is ok for office to office calls.

    > >
    > >

    >
    Arcaidy, Nov 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Jimmyzshack

    Jimmyzshack Guest

    We are looking at using Covads SDSL. They have a pretty good SLA. SDSL
    24 hour and 110 millisecond average. We are in the New Orleans area the
    office will be in AZ, From what i can tell at least here the bell's only
    offer ADSL which the upload speed is not fast enough for more than 2 or
    3 people. Thanks for the LLQ info i've got to do some reading on that.
    Meeting with Cisco next week we'll see what kind of setup they came up
    with.


    "Arcaidy" <> wrote in
    news:ZT4vb.22127$6G3.9301@fed1read06:

    > I'm not sure how call accounting would work on CME. That's an
    > interesting point though.
    > The ISP has nothing to do with QOS. I'm willing to bet that the only
    > thing there willing to offer in that department is "best effort".
    > You'll comfigure LLQ on both of your routers.
    >
    > I'm thinking you are in Florida... If I am wrong, sorry.
    > But if you are and you are in Bell Souths area, they have a service
    > they offer that put traffic on thier private network.
    > Maybe be something to look at. You wouldn't have to compete with
    > "internet" traffic and I think they off better SLA's. Current DSL here
    > only comes with a 72 hour SLA.
    > Thats unacceptable to some. Also, it would get rid of the need for
    > VPN. It's built more like a Frame relay network. Kinda like a point
    > to point.
    >
    > Arcaidy
    >
    >
    > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns943942C4BAC95jimmyzshackyahoocom@216.168.3.44...
    >> Thanks for the input. We are looking into CME but Cisco told me it'll
    >> be march of next year before CME and CCM will talk to each other over
    >> h323. Also this is a sales and collections office so the have phone
    >> time they have to make and i have to be able to to track it. I have a
    >> callaccounting software at the corp office that does it but i don't
    >> think it will work with CME. I plan on using EZVPN and "mode
    >> network-extension" the 831 and LLQ. Do you need the isp to do
    >> anything to use LLQ or does the routers do all of that?
    >>
    >> "Arcaidy" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > We don't use them for remote offices yet. We use them for home
    >> > offices. Currently, there is only a phone and computer behind each.
    >> > We use them over Basic DSL and cable modem. We VPN using EZVPN on
    >> > the router. I have set the interface to 1 meg on the internet side.
    >> > Then configured LLQ. I allowed enough for 2 calls and then 16k for
    >> > control. Seems to work well. I was able to test with a call,
    >> > downloading a couple large files from cisco. Was pulling down over
    >> > a Meg, made a few phone calls and all worked well. There was a bit
    >> > delay with calling a number, but the actual call worked fine. One
    >> > thing we are looking at is putting a DSL and ISDN card in a 1700 so
    >> > we could have basic failover. (if the DSL link went down, the ISDN
    >> > would come up as a failover) You may want to test with 729. I doubt
    >> > very much that an end user would be able to tell the difference.
    >> > You can put call manager express on the 1700 also. It would support
    >> > up to 24 phones. It's just another option.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Jimmyzshack" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:Xns9438933AE2574JimmyRileyvericoreco@140.99.99.130...
    >> >>
    >> >> Arcaidy, how many people do you have at your remote office? Are
    >> >> you doing VPN? What is the bandwidth speed on the remote office?
    >> >> thanks,
    >> >>
    >> >> All calls from this office will be long distance so we where just
    >> >> going to use the 831 back to the corp office to go out over our
    >> >> voice T-1's. Within a year they will be up to 20 people so we
    >> >> would be a voice t-1 out at there location and just use the 831
    >> >> (are maybe get a 17xx in the first place) for office to office
    >> >> calls.
    >> >>
    >> >> G.711 is the only thing the exec want to use b/c of the good voice
    >> >> quailty, they will pay more for bandwidth if needed to use it, but
    >> >> .729 is ok for office to office calls.
    >> >
    >> >

    >>

    >
    >
    >
    Jimmyzshack, Nov 20, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jimmyzshack
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    507
    Claude LeFort
    Nov 19, 2003
  2. RatM
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    392
  3. Fred Atkinson

    VOIP Phone on Cisco 831

    Fred Atkinson, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    570
    Fred Atkinson
    Oct 24, 2004
  4. Fred Atkinson
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    533
    Fred Atkinson
    Jun 20, 2005
  5. Daniel Prinsloo - www.CherryFive.com

    Callmanger Ring Tones

    Daniel Prinsloo - www.CherryFive.com, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    511
    Jonathan
    Jun 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page