macVoIP.com
the web home of Ted Wallingford
Cisco Versus the World
Succeeding with Cisco IP Telephony
from a Customer's Perspective

© Ted Wallingford 2003 - 2004

Table of Contents:

i. Background
1. Inability to perform overhead paging using Cisco SCCP phones.
2. Insecurity of Win32 platform on main Cisco softPBX imposes great overhead.
3. Meet-me paging applications are primitive.
4. Cisco's IP phones are too expensive.
5. Cisco's E911 responder servers add risk to a critical aspect of telephony.
6. The exclusively-distributed approach to telephony switching adds unnecessary failure points.
7. There's no program for 24x7 system monitoring provided by Cisco.
8. There's a hug feature gap between CallManager and CallManager Express, making large system design more difficult.
9. Cisco's legacy of non-support for 802.3af is hurting its customers in the long-term.
10. SIP endpoints can't be supported by the CallManager, making Cisco's softPBX a poor choice for service providers.
ii. Conclusion and Recommendations

5. Cisco 911 Responders are risky
The golden rule of change is, “First, do no harm.” The change in VoIP is justified by gains in other areas: bandwidth economy, applications, and so on. In most instances, VoIP does no harm. But Cisco's Emergency 911 approach introduces risk to a critical component of telephony, and this is harmful.

In order to reach a 911 dispatcher, calls must be routed through the Cisco CallManager to a separate Ethernet-enabled device called a “responder server” that facilitates the connection to the dispatcher. This adds two points of failure for E911 service that don't exist on Avaya: the responder server and the Ethernet data link. This means that if the Ethernet network was compromised, swamped, or
failed, 911 service would not be available.

In Avaya's and Nortel's solutions, E911 is handled via a direct connection to a phone line or through the PRI. If the softPBX inside these system fails to route calls, the port with the dialtone is passed-through automatically via a hardware switch. In this fashion, even if the phone system is down and nobody can call anybody else in the office, 911 calls are still reliably connected.


Cisco's Response: E911 responder servers are only required in areas where highdensity E911 locating services are mandated by law. These services can pinpoint a certain office inside an office tower, for example, rather than just leading the first responders to a particular street address. So, rather than being a risk for everybody, E911 responder servers are only a risk for people who are required by law to use them. Also, importantly, CallManager Express doesn't impose this problem as far as I know. Aren't you thankful you aren't building a 1000+ user emergency-responding system in a highrise? Or are you?