Create an account on the HP Community to personalize your profile and ask a question
06-13-2012 04:44 AM
i'm wondering what's the benefit of ST compared to E serie ?
if i want to register endpoint from WAN side (raw internet network not mpls or vpn)
the ST seems to be the solution.
but what if 2 endpoint located in asia and africa, for instance , registered in the HQ (Paris) gatekeeper make call one with other ?
is all the video/audio stream routed through Paris ? i don't want overload my internet bandwidth by hosting h.323 call even if HQ is not particiapting to the meeting.
is it depending use of H.460.18/19 ?
thank for your precious help and advise
06-15-2012 01:08 PM
The VBP-ST allows for WAN side endpoints to register to your LAN gatekeeper and for CMAD Access Proxy.
The VBP-E allows for WAN side endpoints to call the VBP to reach internal LAN endpoints or MCUs.
The question you ask is if you have 2 endpoints geographically located which then call each other presummably by alias. The calling endpoint would send a call setup to the VBP which proxies to the internal gatekeeper which will respond with the IP address of the other endpoint. The actual media is then sent directly between the two endpoints. The only bit of traffic across the VBP-ST would be the signalling traffic for the gatekeeper.
One more consideration is the VBP-ST is only for inbound calling and can't be used to route outbound H323 traffic. The ideal setup would be to have both the VBP-ST and VBP-E in the Paris HQ and the other endpoitns behind a local VBP-E.
08-20-2012 12:01 PM
What you say about routing of media is certainly true for VBP-E but I think wrong for VBP-ST which is using H.460 standard which unfortunately results in media following the same path as the signalling, its called 'hair pinning'
Don't take my word as gospel on this, read the Polycom documents which explain and make your own conclusion or talk to a Polycom SE or support engineer. I may be wrong 🙂