My problem with software based resources is I have seen IOS code upgrades blow it up. Never seen that with a hardware module at all. I am all for virtualization for sure. Thing is when you constantly have to upgrade software for compliance purposes do you want an integral feature to be fail safe or not and does the operational cost of dealing with those issues exceed the price?
We have a lot of software and hardware DSPs. When I worked in the vendor world I always told the customer to pay for the hardware modules because they are problem free. If they required a great many we would recommend DSP farms of them unless it was just cost prohibitive. You would also of course have to factor in the load that places on the devices handling the routing of calls as well.
Brian Palmer | VoiceOps | DC6 3 355
904-905-8263 | Internal Ext: 58263
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:53 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam <ajp26@buffalo.edu>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
All we would need then is a PRI-to-USB dongle. ;)
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Pawlowski, Adam <ajp26@buffalo.edu<mailto:ajp26@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca<mailto:IThelp@uoguelph.ca>
Lelio,
Well – maybe. They rescinded video conferencing (and transcoding?) using the DSPs at some point. Audio transcoding is done in software all day – but the CPU of the ISR G2 platform at least is not its strong point, it is quickly snowed in by enough feature processing, records processing, debugging, etc. In a virtual environment there should be a stack of CPU available to do audio transcoding and get around that, but, then you don’t sell hardware.
Also yeah, 2.5 years thanks. I’ve lost track of time with all going on.
Best,
Adam
From: Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio@uoguelph.ca>>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:45 PM
To: Pawlowski, Adam <ajp26@buffalo.edu<mailto:ajp26@buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>>; UC Penguin <gentoo@ucpenguin.com<mailto:gentoo@ucpenguin.com>>; Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
I’m guessing DSPs fall into the custom silicon branch of things. But I hear so much about software being able to use GPUs to do magic.
I could see the requirement of vDSP being a robust GPU installed on the chassis.
P S. 3900 eol dec 31 2022 so 2 1/2 years.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Pawlowski, Adam <ajp26@buffalo.edu<mailto:ajp26@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to IThelp@uoguelph.ca<mailto:IThelp@uoguelph.ca>
Oh and to keep this on vCUBE – the ISR G2 boxes that we run will be done for support in another … year and a half or so ?
Unfortunately there’s no “vPRI” that will help with DSP, until we change transport.
From: Pawlowski, Adam
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:55 AM
To: 'Anthony Holloway' <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com>>; UC Penguin <gentoo@ucpenguin.com<mailto:gentoo@ucpenguin.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
I’m not immersed in the industry by any means to say, but yes the cloud thing seems to be a moving target of opportunity to gain actual ROI or benefit from it, amidst changing budgets, feature demands, and licensing models.
I consider where my shop is to be on a bit of a lag on some trends which has its ups and downs. In this case we’re being asked to look at “cloud” now, but, narrowly focused to telephony. On one hand we may get shoved there by vendors, and cloud telephony is everywhere at this point, but, on the other hand the ROI ship has sort of sailed a bit.
When this appeared that you can run in AWS I … just don’t get it. I bet it has its applications if you don’t have space to run premise servers, if the whole city/state/country/world is your “WAN” as far as your business goes, sure. Or if you’re one of the shops still running old PBX and finally looking to bite the bullet, but, hasn’t that well run dry at this point?
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of Anthony Holloway
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34 AM
To: UC Penguin <gentoo@ucpenguin.com<mailto:gentoo@ucpenguin.com>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
I was just hearing from a Cisco person, who was saying something like "Everybody said they had to have it, but when we finally had an offer, there were literally ZERO people who did it."
And here I was thinking that my customer base was just cloud adverse and everyone else was jumping on the AWS band wagon. Guess not.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:28 AM UC Penguin <gentoo@ucpenguin.com<mailto:gentoo@ucpenguin.com>> wrote:
Shared resources like AWS on the surface seem like a great idea for lab stuff. Looks like a great solution for on demand scaling etc though.
It just doesn’t seem to that useful for UC purposes and even if it were it would still be cheaper to buy one server and run it all on one box.
It’s interesting to watch management push for cloud everything and then slowly back away when they see the increased cost.
<image001.gif>
On Jun 4, 2020, at 09:11, Tim Smith <tim.smith@enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith@enject.com.au>> wrote:
Back to CUCM on prem in lab via VPN.
The CUCM AWS deployment is out of reach for lab purposes.
That one is basically CUCM on VMWare in AWS (which is like the dedicated resources) - it's not AWS AMI format.
That said, I've got a great provider here in Australia that does VMWare based cloud (NSX).
That would be good for lab.
Cheers,
Tim
________________________________
From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway%2Bcisco-voip@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2020 11:20 AM
To: Tim Smith <tim.smith@enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith@enject.com.au>>
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
EXTERNAL SENDER WARNING. This message was sent from outside your organisation. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Was that trunk to Twilio for CME? If not, what was on the backside of your gateway? CUCM? If so, was that in AWS too?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:54 PM Tim Smith <tim.smith@enject.com.au<mailto:tim.smith@enject.com.au>> wrote:
Great question, also interested in hearing production stories.
I've deployed Virtual Acme Packet's previously - same limitations - no DSP's etc.
It was a little early and we had teething issues of appliance to virtual machine type stuff.. but through the updates this improved.
I've played with CUBE on CSR1000V on AWS - SIP trunks to Twilio - and it works great.
It's certainly so nice and easy to spin up.
I've also run CSR1000V in AWS for dynamic VPN's.. which again works great.
The DSP's are a nice fallback. You don't need them 99% of the time.. but when that 1% case comes up later - then it's certainly handy.
I think that's a big reason vCUBE is not quoted in customer land.
I assume it could be popular in service provider land though.
With that Acme deployment (and this was actually years ago now) - we were migrating, so we still had PRI gateways with plenty of free DSP's, which we could use for Transcoders if required.
Cheers,
Tim.
________________________________
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-voip@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway%2Bcisco-voip@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2020 7:06 AM
To: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: [cisco-voip] vCUBE Experiences
EXTERNAL SENDER WARNING. This message was sent from outside your organisation. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Anyone have some vCUBEs out in production for a while, and willing to share their feelings and/or experiences with it?
Anything from deployment, to restrictions, to licensing, to upgrade processes, lessons learned, etc?
I think the obvious thing is the lack of DSP/PVDM since this is a virtual machine, but what else?
I don't come across these in the field at all, and I don't see them being proposed or quoted these days, despite vCUBE having been around for a few years now.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
http://defang.bcbsfl.com/defang.php?url=https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip _______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
http://defang.bcbsfl.com/defang.php?url=https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip We comply with applicable Federal civil rights laws and do not discriminate.
You may access the Non-Discrimination and Accessibility Notice here <
http://floridablue.com/ndnotice>.
Language Assistance Available:
Español, Kreyol Ayisien, Ti?ng Vi?t, Português, ??, français, Tagalog, ???????, italiano, Deutsche, ???, Polskie, Gujarati, ???, ???????, ???, ????? <
http://floridablue.com/languageservices>
Florida Blue is a trade name of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. The information contained in this document may be confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This document may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, please (1) be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, or copying of this document IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED; and (2) notify sender immediately by telephone and destroy the document. THANK YOU.
