| Author |
Message |
cubi
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:33 am Post subject:
RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
Hi all,
I haven't experience of Video conferencing solution of Radvision.
The price of Cisco is better than the RADVision. How about performance
of RADVision's VC products (vs Cisco) ?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve Blair
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
Cubi:
Any particular product?
-Steve
cubi wrote:
| Quote: | Hi all,
I haven't experience of Video conferencing solution of Radvision.
The price of Cisco is better than the RADVision. How about performance
of RADVision's VC products (vs Cisco) ?
Thanks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:10 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
Steve Blair <blairs@isc.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<c39lco$uif$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
| Quote: | Cubi:
Any particular product?
-Steve
cubi wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't experience of Video conferencing solution of Radvision.
The price of Cisco is better than the RADVision. How about performance
of RADVision's VC products (vs Cisco) ?
Thanks.
|
Steve,
The Radvision Gw-B40/100 vs Cisco IP/VC 3521 BRI;
The Radvision mcu-15v + TCM H.323 vs Cisco IP/VC 3511;
and the Radvision ECS-50 vs MCM Plus IOS Software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
cubi wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Blair <blairs@isc.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<c39lco$uif$1@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Cubi:
Any particular product?
-Steve
cubi wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't experience of Video conferencing solution of Radvision.
The price of Cisco is better than the RADVision. How about performance
of RADVision's VC products (vs Cisco) ?
Thanks.
Steve,
The Radvision Gw-B40/100 vs Cisco IP/VC 3521 BRI;
The Radvision mcu-15v + TCM H.323 vs Cisco IP/VC 3511;
and the Radvision ECS-50 vs MCM Plus IOS Software.
|
cubi:
For the Gw-B40 and mcu-15v I doubt you'll see
much difference in performance between the RADvision
and Cisco products. Tha main difference is that RADvision
seems to continue to develop their product line while
Cisco has not. SIP support in the RADvision line
is a prime example of this. The 3511 has additional
functionality that the 3510 didn't have but it is
the same box. No performace improvement will be seen
if moving from a 3510 to a 3511.
I can't comment on the ECS-50. I would be concerned
about it running on a Windows platform but that's me.
There are some limitations in the MCM gatekeeper with
respect to interzone calling and aliasing endpoint e.164
addresses but you may not encounter problems if you
aren't doing large, multivendor conferences.
-Steve
may be a better choice than an IOS based platform.
I hesitate to say this because I don't know your
conferencing needs, however, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:51 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
| Quote: |
cubi:
For the Gw-B40 and mcu-15v I doubt you'll see
much difference in performance between the RADvision
and Cisco products. Tha main difference is that RADvision
seems to continue to develop their product line while
Cisco has not. SIP support in the RADvision line
is a prime example of this. The 3511 has additional
functionality that the 3510 didn't have but it is
the same box. No performace improvement will be seen
if moving from a 3510 to a 3511.
I can't comment on the ECS-50. I would be concerned
about it running on a Windows platform but that's me.
There are some limitations in the MCM gatekeeper with
respect to interzone calling and aliasing endpoint e.164
addresses but you may not encounter problems if you
aren't doing large, multivendor conferences.
-Steve
may be a better choice than an IOS based platform.
I hesitate to say this because I don't know your
conferencing needs, however,
|
SPD,
My VC network has 15 endpoints (10 Polycom ViaNideos, 1 ViewStaionFX &
4 VS SP 384). The ViaVideos and VS FX are in INTRANET using H.323. The
VS SP384 connect to gateway by BRI lines, using H.320.
The IPVC 3511 has embegded gatekeeper (100 registers & 30
simuteneously). With Cisco products, I could use this embegded gk
instead of the MCM gk.
Does the Radvision MCU has integrated gatekeeper ?
I know the RADVision is more profesional than Cisco in Videoconf. But
in my country, the price of CIsco's better than Radvision.
Could you tell me more detail of difference in performance between
the RADvision and Cisco products ?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blah
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:35 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
"No performace improvement will be seen
| Quote: | if moving from a 3510 to a 3511."
|
I completely disagree. The 3510 is based on the old ONLan products from
RADVision while the 3511 is based on the ViaIP products. A quick example is
the ONLan lacks the horsepower to do less than 60ms audio packets even
though the standard dictates no limit to how small the packet can be.
"cubi" <vtlphuong_globaleis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4579eed9.0403181851.18a7cd39@posting.google.com...
| Quote: |
cubi:
For the Gw-B40 and mcu-15v I doubt you'll see
much difference in performance between the RADvision
and Cisco products. Tha main difference is that RADvision
seems to continue to develop their product line while
Cisco has not. SIP support in the RADvision line
is a prime example of this. The 3511 has additional
functionality that the 3510 didn't have but it is
the same box. No performace improvement will be seen
if moving from a 3510 to a 3511.
I can't comment on the ECS-50. I would be concerned
about it running on a Windows platform but that's me.
There are some limitations in the MCM gatekeeper with
respect to interzone calling and aliasing endpoint e.164
addresses but you may not encounter problems if you
aren't doing large, multivendor conferences.
-Steve
may be a better choice than an IOS based platform.
I hesitate to say this because I don't know your
conferencing needs, however,
SPD,
My VC network has 15 endpoints (10 Polycom ViaNideos, 1 ViewStaionFX &
4 VS SP 384). The ViaVideos and VS FX are in INTRANET using H.323. The
VS SP384 connect to gateway by BRI lines, using H.320.
The IPVC 3511 has embegded gatekeeper (100 registers & 30
simuteneously). With Cisco products, I could use this embegded gk
instead of the MCM gk.
Does the Radvision MCU has integrated gatekeeper ?
I know the RADVision is more profesional than Cisco in Videoconf. But
in my country, the price of CIsco's better than Radvision.
Could you tell me more detail of difference in performance between
the RADvision and Cisco products ?
Thanks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Blair
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:48 pm Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
blah:
Thanks for the note. In my application I see no improvement
in performance. I realize the 3511 is based on a different
product but other than the additional per conference features
I have not seen any improvement.
The complaint we hear most often is regarding video
quality/availability. We run most conferences at 768kbps, CIF,
30fps, H.263, G.711. In this configuration users of the
3510 and 3511 repeatedly report tiling in the video as well
as paused video. That is to say times when the speach path
keeps working while the video stops updating for serveral
seconds (as much as 10 seconds sometimes).
These same problems don't occur using the embedded MCUs
in our room systems or an Accord box located at another site.
In your experience have you seen this behavior? Do you
have any things I can explore (other than network throughput)
to understand the problem?
Thanks,Steve
blah wrote:
| Quote: | "No performace improvement will be seen
if moving from a 3510 to a 3511."
I completely disagree. The 3510 is based on the old ONLan products from
RADVision while the 3511 is based on the ViaIP products. A quick example is
the ONLan lacks the horsepower to do less than 60ms audio packets even
though the standard dictates no limit to how small the packet can be.
"cubi" <vtlphuong_globaleis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4579eed9.0403181851.18a7cd39@posting.google.com...
cubi:
For the Gw-B40 and mcu-15v I doubt you'll see
much difference in performance between the RADvision
and Cisco products. Tha main difference is that RADvision
seems to continue to develop their product line while
Cisco has not. SIP support in the RADvision line
is a prime example of this. The 3511 has additional
functionality that the 3510 didn't have but it is
the same box. No performace improvement will be seen
if moving from a 3510 to a 3511.
I can't comment on the ECS-50. I would be concerned
about it running on a Windows platform but that's me.
There are some limitations in the MCM gatekeeper with
respect to interzone calling and aliasing endpoint e.164
addresses but you may not encounter problems if you
aren't doing large, multivendor conferences.
-Steve
may be a better choice than an IOS based platform.
I hesitate to say this because I don't know your
conferencing needs, however,
SPD,
My VC network has 15 endpoints (10 Polycom ViaNideos, 1 ViewStaionFX &
4 VS SP 384). The ViaVideos and VS FX are in INTRANET using H.323. The
VS SP384 connect to gateway by BRI lines, using H.320.
The IPVC 3511 has embegded gatekeeper (100 registers & 30
simuteneously). With Cisco products, I could use this embegded gk
instead of the MCM gk.
Does the Radvision MCU has integrated gatekeeper ?
I know the RADVision is more profesional than Cisco in Videoconf. But
in my country, the price of CIsco's better than Radvision.
Could you tell me more detail of difference in performance between
the RADvision and Cisco products ?
Thanks.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:31 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
I've found that RADVision is the OEM of Cisco in IP/VC prodducts.
May be their products have not much different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=-peas-=-
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:25 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
"cubi" <vtlphuong_globaleis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4579eed9.0403221831.7fe6308b@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | I've found that RADVision is the OEM of Cisco in IP/VC prodducts.
May be their products have not much different.
|
Yep, Radvision make the software stack that 80% of video products on the
market use, most of them however keep this quiet.
AFAIK The Cisco additonally offers:
- IOS like CLI interface (would probably be picked up by CDP as well)
- SCCP support
- A different colour chassis :)
-=-peas-=- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:36 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
| Quote: | Hi all,
I haven't experience of Video conferencing solution of Radvision.
The price of Cisco is better than the RADVision. How about
performance
of RADVision's VC products (vs Cisco) ?
Thanks.
|
You could also take a look the Codian products. You will find that
these are far cheaper than the Cisco/Rad solutions. As they use the
latest DSPs to power them they are also very powerful and extremely
easy to set up and use. The Codian MCU4200 series MCU is at a very
convincing price point with many high end features (such as H264,
advanced continuous presence, easy to use ad-hoc conferenceing and
much more) as standard.
If you are interested take a look at:
www.codian.com
You can also try out a unit that is on the interenet for yourselves -
see
www.codian.com/demo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glen Sykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: RADVision vs Cisco IP/VC |
|
|
There are no differences between Cisco + Radvision Gateways at all
Cisco 3521 = Radvision GW4B
Cisco 3526 = Radvision GW1P
Cisco 3540 = Radvision ViaIP400 GW2P
The major difference between the Cisco MCU and Radvision MCU are that
the Cisco MCU has had further development within Cisco to support the
SCCP (Skinny) protocol for Cisco's Call Manager solution. Radvision on
the other hand have opted to develop SIP. I would expect to see SIP
support on the Cisco variant sometime in the medium term.
The biggest difference between the 2 vendors is in the Gatekeeper.
The Radvision GK, (ECS) is windows based and is driven by licenses to
determine its call handling capabilities. It is configured via a GUI
and has several add-on options including a Firewall / NAT traversal
solution that depends on the GK being placed in a firewalls DMZ.
Cisco's GK is based upon the Cisco Router platform, and it's
performance is determined by the router platform it is hosted on. It
is configured from a command line interface. When coupled with the
Cisco IP to IP gateway, I beleive that it forms the most powerful GK on
the market today with its ability to proxy H.323 streams to any
location (including local zones), and not just firewall traversal as
seen in the Rad Solution.
--
Glen Sykes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Sykes's Profile: http://www.vtctalk.com/member.php?userid=520
View this thread: http://www.vtctalk.com/showthread.php?t=894 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in