James,

Does this mean you have an h323 gateway? Right now, I have MGCP, which I'm 
guessing, precludes me from doing this. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:51 AM, James Andrewartha <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> With our security systems I have to remove the call manager from the call 
> path for the system to complete due to the nonstandard tones they send. From 
> my notes on how to configure this:
> 
> On the VG224s:
> 
> voice class h323 1
>   h225 timeout tcp establish 3
> voice-port 2/13
>   no timeouts
> dial-peer voice 23 pots
>   service stcapp
> dial-peer voice 99 voip
>   description h323 direct to voip1 for alarm number
>   destination-pattern 13451015
>   session target ipv4:10.101.0.5
>   voice-class h323 1
>   codec g711ulaw
>   no vad
> dial-peer voice 98 voip
>   description h323 direct to voip2 for alarm number
>   preference 1
>   destination-pattern 13451015
>   session target ipv4:10.101.0.6
>   voice-class h323 1
>   codec g711ulaw
>   no vad
> 
> On the 2921s:
> 
> voice service voip
> ip address trusted list
>   ipv4 10.100.0.10 255.255.255.255
> 
> The AVG is 10.100.0.10, the 2921s are 10.101.0.5 and .6, and dial-peer voice 
> 23 is for voice-port 2/13. These are GE security panels I think (which their 
> MAC OUI confirms).
> 
> -- 
> James Andrewartha
> Network & Projects Engineer
> Christ Church Grammar School
> Claremont, Western Australia
> Ph. (08) 9442 1757
> Mob. 0424 160 877
> 
> From: Justin Steinberg <[email protected]>
> Date: Monday, 2 March 2015 2:14 am
> To: chris <[email protected]>
> Cc: Cisco VOIP <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] FXS voltages / POTS compatibility
> 
> Are you using local h323 or sip 'pots' dialpeers to route directly between 
> your FXS and T1 port?  Or is call manager in between the call due to MGCP or 
> VOIP dialpeers involved in the dialplan ?
> 
> I doubt your issue is line voltage, since you can see the call being placed.  
> My guess is the DSP is processing the call and causing issues.  I've seem 
> alarm boxes use nonstandard DTMF transmission that isn't properly recognized 
> by the DSP.
> 
> The 2800 supports DSP bypass by default when you route directly between ports 
> using POTS dialpeers.   You do need to have properly configured network clock 
> configuration.
> 
> Can you send a copy of your config along with the output of 'show controller 
> t1' and 'show network-clock'
> 
> Justin
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2015 10:33 PM, "chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hey Ryan,
>> 
>> We have a channelized T1 with channels split between voice/data so the voice 
>> path is TDM. We have a VIC-4FXS/DID and for each of the two ports we have a 
>> single copper pair with rj11 on both ends, one side going to the FXS port 
>> and the other is going into alarm panel. The total distance from the 2800 to 
>> the alarm panel is around 20-30 feet and its a direct run, no 66 blocks or 
>> anything in between.
>> Don't know model of the panel (this is another location) 
>> 
>> From what I've read I think the problem is the default idle-voltage the 
>> VIC-4FXS/DID is only -24V but based on the link I sent in the first email I 
>> thought this could be reconfigured through the idle-voltage option but this 
>> doesnt seem to be available when I try to enter it under the voice-port. 
>> When I talked to the alarm company and told them I see the calls going 
>> through the guy told me the alarm doesn't check the line state based on the 
>> dialtone and he said that it uses the voltage to see when the line is idle, 
>> ringing, etc and I think this is where the problem lies.
>> 
>> Someone recommend this adapter offlist which looks interesting but the price 
>> is a little nuts as it costs more than all the equipment we have installed 
>> at this site combined. 
>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Viking-1-Line-Long-Loop-Adapter-VK-LLA-1/204399995
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Ryan Huff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Chris,
>>> 
>>> Can you diagram the connections for me?
>>> 
>>> Are the copper pairs swinging off a 66 block before terminating to the 
>>> alarm panel or is there a direct copper path between the fxs port and the 
>>> alarm? Are you using an RJ-11 or RJ-14 configuration?
>>> 
>>> Could you estimate the copper distance between the termination points?
>>> 
>>> Is the pstn path for the VG SIP or TOM?
>>> 
>>> Also, I would be curious to know if the alarm panel is a Simplex Grinnell?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> From: chris <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 07:52 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: [cisco-voip] FXS voltages / POTS compatibility
>>> 
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> We have a location with a 2800 acting as a voice gateway where we have 2 
>>> FXS voice ports going to an alarm system. We are using the vic-4fxs/did 
>>> line card.
>>> 
>>> We have the alarm company saying they are seeing the panel reporting Comm 
>>> trouble so we checked the call records and we also did some debugging in 
>>> realtime and we see the calls are going out and when we plug a test set in 
>>> the dial tone is good.
>>> 
>>> In talking with the alarm company and researching we have come to believe 
>>> the issue may be due to the idle and ringing voltages. We came across this 
>>> link:
>>> 
>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice/analog-signaling-e-m-did-fxs-fxo/28280-ring-idle-voltages-fxs.html
>>> 
>>> This looked promising however when we are in voice port configuration node 
>>> we do not have the idle-voltage setting available. We tried several iOS 
>>> versions in 12.4 as well as 15.x hut no luck
>>> 
>>> Is this line card not capable of -48 idle voltage? What cards are? Do we 
>>> need anything special as far iOS version?
>>> 
>>> Ideally we want to have 2 voice ports that are as close to a standard pots 
>>> line as possible.
>>> 
>>> We are a bit lost as its the first time we have hit an issue like this and 
>>> we are just hoping someone has been down this path before. If we have to 
>>> change line cards or even to another platform we are open to it as long if 
>>> someone has a setup that is known working in this manner
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance 
>>> Chris
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Reply via email to