Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study

on

  • 1,146 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,146
Views on SlideShare
1,146
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study Document Transcript

  • December 2004 www.veritest.com • info@veritest.com Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study Test report prepared under contract from Polycom, Inc. Executive Summary Polycom commissioned VeriTest to conduct an independent comparative Key Findings analysis of four Multipoint Conferencing Unit (MCU) products Overall, the Polycom MCU demonstrated the most complete used for video conferencing systems. set of security and authentication, as well as, administration We performed a series of tests on operation and control feature capabilities of all MCU products each product that was consistent with in our review. the typical product usage. We found that the Polycom MCU offered the most flexibility We evaluated the following four MCU within its feature set of all of the MCU products. systems: Based on the results from our three use case scenarios, we • Polycom MGC-100 found that the Polycom offered the largest and most flexible • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU set of options to complete the use cases successfully. • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 • TANDBERG Media Processing System (MPS) Polycom and VeriTest worked together to create a test methodology to measure the capability of each product in this study. This methodology covered a wide spectrum of real-user MCU product capabilities and was designed to examine how effective each product was when subjected to real-world operational settings. The 71 test cases that we used measured the capability of each product across the following feature set: 1. Security and Authentication a. Conference Security b. System Security 2. Versatility a. Transcoding b. Data and Content c. Continuous Presence d. Conference Routing e. Conference Types f. Resource Management g. Customization 3. Operation and Control a. System Management b. User Control In summary, we found that the Polycom MGC-100 MCU successfully passed 63 of the 63 test cases, compared to 14 passed test cases for the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU, 5 for the TANDBERG MCU 16+16, and 7 for the TANDBERG MCU MPS. Additionally, for tests that were quantitative in nature and did not generate a simple pass/fail response, the Polycom MCU consistently demonstrated a significantly wider range of capabilities and more flexibility than the other manufacturers. One example that showed this flexibility was the Polycom approach to transcoding. Their ability to mix 62 video connections in a single conference, each
  • with separate connection parameters was significantly more than the other manufacturers could do and would be of significant benefit in a video network deployment. The Polycom MCU also demonstrated the most complete set of security and authentication capabilities as well as the most powerful administration operation and control features of all MCU products in our review. An example of this is the consistently high pass rate of the Polycom MCU on security issues such as multiple administration levels and password protection, when compared to the other manufacturers’ products. Overall, we found that the Polycom MCU offered by far the greatest flexibility within its feature set across all three key areas of security, versatility and operational management of all of the MCU products tested. In addition, we used three use case scenarios to determine how each product would behave when deployed as the target MCU within different real-world scenarios. For the first use case, we used the following scenario: Company XYZ hosts multiple conferences on the behalf of clients and billed according to usage. As such, they need to provide secure conferencing with strong password and conference protection. Every client is provided with a unique, randomly generated password for chair and participant access. It is critical that all passwords comply with their in-house password policy. Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The RADVISION MCU was able to complete two of the required tasks, and both TANDBERG MCU products did not pass on all tasks. For the second use case, we used the following scenario: Company XYZ has implemented on-demand conferencing throughout their company. Each functional work group has their own entry queue, conference identifier, and set of passwords for security. To conserve resources, the director of IT only wants the conference to start once the chairperson is participating. In addition, to minimize the amount of time spent on conference management, the director wants the ability for the chairperson to control his or her own conference, identifying who is present, the duration, and the screen layouts. Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The other MCU products did not pass on all tasks. For the third use case, we used the following scenario: Service Provider XYZ business model is to host multiple conferences for their enterprise-based clients. As such, they provide premium high touch services as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition. One area they wish to excel at is for their clients to have a high quality experience with the expectation to connect right away, request help when needed and the audio quality to be superb. This service provider has set up each of their clients with their own call in number with multiple conference ID’s for each number, customized IVR, operator services and a Service Level Agreement. Since they host thousands of hours of conferencing per month, scalability is required and multiple operators to monitor on going conferences. Based on our test case results, the Polycom MCU was able to complete all required tasks. The other MCU products did not pass on all tasks. Based on the results from our use case scenarios, we found that the Polycom offered the largest and most flexible set of options to complete the use cases successfully. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 2
  • Test Results Polycom commissioned VeriTest to conduct a comparative analysis of four MCU products. We performed a series of tests on each of the four products that was consistent with the typical product usage. We evaluated the following four systems: • Polycom MGC-100 • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 • TANDBERG MPS Polycom and VeriTest worked together to create a test methodology to measure the capability of each product in this study. This methodology covered a wide spectrum of real-user product capabilities. The test methodology that we used measured the capability of each product across the following feature set: 1. Security and Authentication a. Conference Security b. System Security 2. Versatility a. Transcoding b. Data and Content c. Continuous Presence d. Conference Routing e. Conference Types f. Resource Management g. Customization 3. Operation and Control a. System Management b. User Control Although we tested discrete features of the MCUs in this study, some of the tests that we ran have common methodologies. See the section on Test Methodology for a complete description of the test methodology that we used in this study. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 3
  • Results Summary The following set of tables includes a summary of the test cases that we performed in this study. Test # Test Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 1 Conference Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Password Call-in and Call- out 2 Password Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Hierarchy 3 Privilege Profiles Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 4 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Password Generation 5 Password Integrity Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Validation 6 Conference Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Password String Validation 7 Change Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference Password During A Conference 8 Conference Lock Passed Passed Passed Passed 9 Conference Hide Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 10 Automatic Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Conference Termination – no show 11 Automatic Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Conference Termination – after last person 12 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference Termination – after chairperson leader profile exits 13 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Termination – During A Conference 14 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Requires Chairperson or leader To Start 15 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Identification – Entering a conference 16 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 4
  • Identification – Leaving a conference 17 Automatic Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Participant Identification By Name 18 Roll Call Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 19 Automatic Dial Out Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 20 Operator Assisted Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Routing Figure 1. Security and Authentication Test Results Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 5
  • Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 21 Request Private Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Operator Assistance 22 Secure Breakout Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass or Sidebar Session 23 Decreasing Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Password Attempts 24 Failed Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Access 25 Secure Non Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Password Conference 26 Administration 3 levels of 2 levels of 1 level of 1 level of Hierarchy administration administration administration administration 27 Administration Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Login Identification 28 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Countdown To Termination Figure 2. Security and Authentication Test Results (continued) Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 29 Transcoding 12 of 12 3 of 12 2 of 12 2 of 12 Bandwidths 30 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 Protocols 31 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 1 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 Formats 32 Transcoding Audio 6 of 6 6 of 6 4 of 6 4 of 6 Algorithms 33 Transcoding All 62 of 62 3 of 62 2 of 62 2 of 62 34 Mixed Protocol Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference Application Layer 35 Mixed Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Passed Presentation Layer Figure 3. Versatility - Transcoding Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 36 T.120 Support Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Datasheet comparison 37 Standard H.239 Passed Passed Did not pass Passed Support Datasheet comparison Figure 4. Versatility – Data and Content Test Results Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 6
  • Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 38 Configurable Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Automatic Layout Selection 39 Private Layout Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 40 Chairperson Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Layout Change 41 Virtual Classroom Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 42 Broadcast Mode Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 43 CNN CP View Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Figure 5. Versatility – Continuous Presence Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 44 Conference DID Passed Passed Passed Passed Number Routing 45 Different Number Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference ID Routing 46 Participant Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Number Routing Figure 6. Versatility – Conference Routing Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 47 Operator Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 48 Scheduled Passed Passed Passed Passed 49 Ad-hoc Dialing Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass 50 Ad-hoc Predefined Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Dialing Figure 7. Versatility – Conference Type Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 51 Music On Hold Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Detection 52 Resource Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Management 53 Resource Reset Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 54 Multi System View 3 of 3 parameters 0 of 3 parameters 1 of 3 parameters 1 of 3 parameters 55 Integrated Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Gateway 56 Simultaneous Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Conferences Figure 8. Versatility – Resource Management Test Results Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 7
  • Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 57 IVR Variations Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 58 Multi-language Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Company Greeting Entry Queue Figure 9. Versatility – Customization Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 59 Administration Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Login Identification 60 Multiple Admin 3 levels of 2 levels of 1 level of 1 level of Profiles administration administration administration administration 61 Multi-language Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Company Greeting Entry Queue 62 Single Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Management Interface 63 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Filtering – Faulty Connection 64 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Filtering – Participants Requesting Assistance 65 Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Filtering – Noisy Line 66 Automatic Mute Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass On Music Detection 67 View Individual Passed Did not pass Passed Passed Capabilities Figure 10. Operation and Control – System Management Test Results Test # Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 100 400 MCU 16+16 68 Ad-hoc Dialing Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass 69 Single Number per Passed Passed Passed Passed Conference 70 Single Number For Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass All Conferences 71 Personalized Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference Figure 11. Operation and Control – User Control Test Results Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 8
  • Security and Administration Testing The Security and Administration test cases focus on determining the product’s ability to provide a maximum level of conference security through the set of features provided by the MCU under test. Additionally, these tests address the set of features provided by the MCU to perform administrative control remotely. Test case 1 - Conference Password In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by protecting entry to a conference by the use of a password. To prove this capability, we created a conference definition with a conference password. We then dialed into and out of the conference checking to ensure that the MCU prompted us for a password for each type of connection. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We dialed into the conference and the Polycom MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a second endpoint and once again, the MCU prompted us for a password. This test proved that this security feature worked for both dial in and dial out conditions. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We dialed into the conference and the RADVISION MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a second endpoint and once again, the MCU prompted that endpoint for a password. This test proved that this security feature worked for both dial in and dial out conditions. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We dialed into the conference and the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a second endpoint; however, when that participant answered the endpoint, the MCU did not request a password. The MCU placed the endpoint into the conference regardless. This test proved that this security feature worked for dial in connections but not for dial out connections. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference that was password protected. We dialed into the conference and the TANDBERG MPS prompted us for a password. We then dialed out to a second endpoint; however, when that participant answered the endpoint, the MCU did not request a password. The MCU placed the endpoint into the conference regardless. This test proved that this security feature worked for dial in connections but not for dial out connections. Test case 2 - Password Hierarchy In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by facilitating entry into a conference using a password hierarchy. Permitting access into a conference using multiple passwords allows the MCU to provide greater conference security by granting or denying access to additional services based on the password profile supplied to enter the conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference definition granting additional privileges to the chairperson or leader password profile to that of the participant password profile. We then dialed into the conference using each password profile to confirm that entry was possible using a password hierarchy and that each profile afforded differing levels of functionality. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant password. Using the MCU configuration menu we selected an IVR Message Service that we used for this test. We then dialed into the conference using the participant password from one endpoint and then dialed into the same conference using the chairperson password from another endpoint. To ensure that we had dialed into the conference with differing levels of permissions, we were able to mute all endpoints using DTMF codes from the endpoint where the chairperson’s password was entered and were unable to do this on the endpoint where the participant’s password was entered. This test proved that this password hierarchy test passed successfully. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 9
  • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant password. However, when we dialed into the conference, we were able to log in as the participant only. When we attempted to dial into the conference as the chairperson, the RADVISION MCU generated an operator recording stating that we had entered an invalid password. We later found that the chairperson password is to be used to enter the administration console with special permissions, not to enter a specific conference with chairperson privileges. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we found that the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 allowed us to create only one password per conference. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS – Did not pass Using the administration console, we found that the TANDBERG MPS allowed us to create only one password per conference. This test proved that this password hierarchy test did not pass. Test case 3 - Privilege Profiles In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security being capable of assigning multiple instances of contrasting levels of in-conference functionality or privilege profiles using a single conference definition. To prove this capability, we created a single conference definition and confirmed that the chairperson or leader received different in-conference capabilities to that of the participant. Using the same conference definition, a second conference was created that used a different privilege profile. We then connected another chairperson or leader and participant to confirm that a completely different set of in- conference privileges were available. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant. We were able to make these changes by going to the MCU configuration menu and selecting IVR Msg Services, and then a specific IVR Message Service that we used for this test. We dialed into the conference as a participant using one endpoint and then dialed into the conference as a chairperson using another endpoint. To ensure that we had dialed into the conference with different permissions, we were able to mute all endpoints using DTMF codes on the chairperson endpoint, and unable to do this on the participant endpoint. We then created a second conference using the same conference definition and confirmed that a different profile was active. This test proved that this privilege profile test passed successfully. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a conference with a chairperson and a participant. However, when we dialed into the conference, we were able to log in as the participant only. When we attempted to dial into the conference as the chairperson, the RADVISION MCU generated an operator recording stating that we had entered an invalid password. We were unable to mute all other participants from an endpoint for two reasons: 1.) all of the conference endpoints did not have sufficient privileges to mute all other participants, and 2.) we were unable to find DTMF codes that would allow an endpoint to mute all other endpoint in a conference. However, we found that all endpoints could be muted by using the RADVISION MCU administration console. The inability to pass this test proved that the privilege profile test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a conference with one level of password hierarchy (See Test 2). We then dialed into the conference and were unable to find functionality to enable or restrict differing levels of functionality. We found that we were required to have access to the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 administration console to perform chairperson privileges, such as muting other participants. The inability to pass this test proved that the privilege profile test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 10
  • Using the administration console, we created a conference with one level of password hierarchy (See Test 2). We then dialed into the conference and were unable to find functionality to enable or restrict differing levels of functionality. We found that we were required to have access to the TANDBERG MPS administration console to perform chairperson privileges, such as muting other participants. The inability to pass this test proved that the privilege profile test did not pass. Test case 4 - Automatic Password Generation In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security being capable of automatically generating passwords. Automatic password generation increases conference security ensuring that every conference is password protected, complies with password integrity checks, and ensures password uniqueness. To prove this capability, we created a conference with no password and validated whether a password was automatically generated based on the condition of no password supplied. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. When we attempted to create a conference with no password, the Polycom MCU overrode this option and automatically assigned randomized passwords for both the chairperson and participants RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The RADVISION MCU did not generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed single character passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered password. The inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The MCU did not generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed single character passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered password. The inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using the administration console, we were able to create a password-protected conference. The MCU did not generate a random password, so we were required to enter a password. The MCU allowed single character passwords, so there did not appear to be any password integrity checks on the entered password. The inability to pass this test proved that the automatic password generation test did not pass. Test case 5 - Password Integrity Validation In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by applying a password integrity check, checking that all passwords meet a minimum or maximum password length specified by the MCU. To prove this capability, we validated whether or not the MCU under test checked, validated, or rejected passwords entered from the endpoint. We dialed into a password-protected conference and attempted to enter a password. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Upon creation of conference, we got a dialog that stated “status = STATUS_ILLEGAL_PASSWORD_LENGTH”. The conference required four or more numeric characters for a valid password. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Created a conference with a service that had password required. When password required was enabled, we were able to enter with passwords of only one character in length. There appeared to be no custom minimum limit to the password size. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass We were able to create a conference with a password with only one character. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 11
  • TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We were able to create a conference with a password with only one character. Test case 6 - Conference Password String Validation In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by validating the password as a complete string. To prove this capability, we created a conference with a password of “12345.” We then entered the conference with the password of “1234567” and reported whether or not we could connect to the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.” We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The Polycom MCU prompted us to enter the conference password, followed by a “#” sign. Requiring the endpoint to terminate the password with the “#” sign allows the Polycom MCU to match exact string matches. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU denied our entry into the conference due to providing the wrong password. The rejection of the incorrect password string proved that the conference password string validation test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.” We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The RADVISION MCU prompted us to enter the conference password, followed by a “#” sign. Requiring the endpoint to terminate the password with the “#” sign allows the RADVISION MCU to match exact string matches. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU denied our entry into the conference due to providing the wrong password. The rejection of the incorrect password string proved that the conference password string validation test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.” We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The TANDBERG MCU prompted us to enter the conference password. The TANDBERG MCU did not prompt us to terminate the password with the "#" sign, or some other termination key. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU connected us to the conference. Additionally, when we dialed "9871234567" as the password, we were connected to the conference apparently because the password string "12345" exists somewhere in the string we entered. We found that the MCU remains open accepting password characters. If any substring is entered that matches the expected password string, then the endpoint is entered into the conference. The ability to enter a conference with an incorrect password proved that the conference password string validation test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference using a password of “12345.” We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The TANDBERG MCU prompted us to enter the conference password. The TANDBERG MCU did not prompt us to terminate the password with the "#" sign, or some other termination key. We entered a password of “1234567” and the MCU connected us to the conference. Additionally, when we dialed "9871234567" as the password, we were connected to the conference apparently because the password string "12345" exists somewhere in the string we entered. We found that the MCU remains open accepting password characters. If any substring is entered that matches the expected password string, then the endpoint is entered into the conference. The ability to enter a conference with an incorrect password proved that the conference password string validation test did not pass. Test case 7 - Change Conference Password during a Conference In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a password assigned to a conference to be changed by an endpoint during an ongoing conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference with a password of “2222.” We then entered the conference and changed the password to “3333.” We then attempted to have a new endpoint join. We validated failure by typing “2222” Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 12
  • to ensure that we could not connect to the updated conference and also validated success by typing “3333” to ensure that we could connect to the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference with a password of “2222.” We used an endpoint to dial into the conference and entered “2222” when prompted for the password. We then entered *77, the DTMF code to change the conference password, and changed the password to “3333.” We then had a second endpoint dial into the conference. We tried entering the conference by entering the password “2222,” were rejected from the conference, and asked to re-enter the password. We entered “3333” this time and were connected to the conference. The rejection of the incorrect password string and acceptance of the updated password proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a password-protected conference with a password of “2222.” We used an endpoint to dial into the conference and entered “2222” when prompted for the password. We were unable to use DTMF codes at the endpoint to change the password. Although the RADVISION MCU manual says that the MCU can use DTMF codes, we were unable to get a response from the MCU using DTMF codes. We were unable to find a parameter setting in the administration console to change this features. The inability to change the password within a conference proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding using DTMF codes to administer the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU from an endpoint. We confirmed that DTMF codes, with the exception of password provision, are not supported on the TANDBERG MCU. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. We were also unable to change the conference password during the conference via the administration console; however, the password string field was disabled. The inability to support DTMF codes to support this feature proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding using DTMF codes to administer the TANDBERG MPS from an endpoint. We confirmed that DTMF codes, with the exception of password provision, are not supported on the TANDBERG MCU. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. We were also unable to change the conference password during the conference via the administration console; however, the password string field was disabled. The inability to support DTMF codes to support this feature proved that this test did not pass. Test case 8 - Conference Lock In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing an on going conference to be locked to deny access to any further connections. To prove this capability, we created a conference, then entered and locked the conference to stop further participants joining. We then attempted to dial into the conference to confirm that further entry was not allowed. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference. We then locked the conference using DTMF codes (*70) and then, using a second endpoint, we dialed into the conference. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference. We then locked the conference using the administration console and then, using a second endpoint, we dialed into the conference. We were unable to connect to the conference since it was locked. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 13
  • Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference. We disabled the Allow Incoming Calls checkbox using the administration console and then, using a second endpoint, we dialed into the conference. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MPS - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference. We disabled the Allow Incoming Calls checkbox using the administration console and then, using a second endpoint, we dialed into the conference. The inability to connect to a locked conference proved that this test passed. Test case 9 - Conference Hide In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing an on going conference to be secured so that it cannot be monitored by any application or interface. To prove this capability, we created a conference, then entered the conference and secured the conference so that it cannot be monitored any application or interface. We then attempted to view the conference in the administration console. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used an endpoint to dial into the conference. We then locked the conference using DTMF codes (*71). We then attempted to view the conference in the Polycom MCU administration console and could not see any information related to this call. The inability to view this hidden conference proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console and the RADVISION MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the RADVISION MCU. The lack of a hide conference feature proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console and the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU documentation, we were unable to find any information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU. The lack of a hide conference feature proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using the administration console and the TANDBERG MPS documentation, we were unable to find any information to suggest that allowed us to hide conferences on the TANDBERG MPS. The lack of a hide conference feature proved that this test did not pass. Test case 10 - Automatic Conference Termination – no show In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a conference if no connections are made within a set number of minutes from the start of the conference. We created a conference to terminate after two minutes before the first connection. We then used the administration console to confirm that conference terminated after two minutes had elapsed. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with Auto-termination enabled. We set the termination time to be two minutes. We created the conference and let it sit idle for two minutes. We observed the conference terminate via the MGC Manager console. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We created a conference with termination after no show using the advanced options. We set the termination time to be two minutes. We created the conference and let it idle for two minutes. We observed the conference terminate via the RADVISION administration console. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 14
  • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass We created a conference with the Max Call Duration set to one minute. The conference displayed this information in the conference summary window. Once a participant called into the conference, a timer was set to allow a conference of 1-minute maximum. After one minute, the participant was silently disconnected. The conference remained created. If another participant called into the conference, the clock would reset and allow that participant to join that conference for one minute. The TANDBERG MCU is designed to terminate the conference call, but to leave the conference running for future connections. Regardless, the only manner to terminate a conference is by manually terminating it with the administration console. The inability to have a conference terminate by conference timeout confirms that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We created a conference with the Max Call Duration set to one minute. The conference displayed this information in the conference summary window. Once a participant called into the conference, a timer was set to allow a conference of 1-minute maximum. After one minute, the participant was silently disconnected. The conference remained created. If another participant called into the conference, the clock would reset and allow that participant to join that conference for one minute. The TANDBERG MPS MCU is design to terminate the conference call, but to leave the conference running for future connections. Regardless, the only manner to terminate a conference is by manually terminating it with the administration console. The inability to have a conference terminate by conference timeout confirms that this test did not pass. Test case 11 - Automatic Conference Termination – after last person In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a conference after the last person leaves the conference. We created a conference to terminate one minute after the last person leaves the conference. We then used the administration console to confirm that conference terminated one minute after the last person left. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with Auto-termination enabled. We set the termination time to be one minute after the last person leaves. We created the conference, dialed into it, disconnected from it, and then let it sit idle for one minute. We observed the conference terminate via the MGC Manager console. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We created a conference with the administration console setting to terminate after last participant leaves. We created the conference, dialed into it, disconnected from it, and then let it sit idle for one minute. After one minute, the conference terminated on its own. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass We created a conference with the administration console. We noticed that the TANDBERG MCU only allowed the overall length of a conference call to be pre-determined. After reviewing the product and the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we determined that we must terminate all conferences manually. The failure to terminate the conference automatically proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We created a conference with the administration console. We noticed that the TANDBERG MCU only allowed the overall length of a conference call to be pre-determined. After reviewing the product and the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we determined that we must terminate all conferences manually. The failure to terminate the conference automatically proved that this test did not pass. Test case 12 - Automatic Conference Termination – after chairperson profile exits In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a conference after the chairperson profile exits the conference. We created a conference to terminate after the chairperson profile exits the conference. We then dialed into the conference as the chairperson, and dialed in Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 15
  • with a separate endpoint as a participant. We then had the chairperson exit the conference. We used the administration console to confirm that conference terminated after the chairperson exited the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with Terminate after Chairperson Exits enabled. We created the conference, dialed into it as the chairperson, and dialed into it as a participant. We then disconnected the chairperson from the conference and waited to ensure that the conference terminated. The confirmation of the terminated conference proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that the first participant into a conference creates the conference instance. Therefore, when this participant exits the conference, the conference terminates. We also found no distinction between participant and chairperson in the conference. Based on the previous reasons, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding establishing a hierarchy of conference privileges; therefore, it cannot detect the difference between a chairperson dialing into a conference versus a participant dialing into a conference. We also determined that all conferences must be terminated manually. Based on the previous reasons, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding establishing a hierarchy of conference privileges; therefore, it cannot detect the difference between a chairperson dialing into a conference versus a participant dialing into a conference. We also determined that all conferences must be terminated manually. Based on the previous reasons, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 13 - Conference Termination – during a conference In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a conference to be instantaneously terminated during an ongoing conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference and had three endpoints dial into the conference as participants. From one of the endpoints, we entered the DTMF code to terminate the conference. We used the administration console to confirm that conference terminated. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We used three endpoints to dial into the conference as participants. Using one endpoint, we then terminated the conference using DTMF codes (*87). We monitored the conference in the Polycom MCU administration console. The Polycom MCU deleted the conference from the console. The termination of this conference from the console proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that there were no DTMF commands that allow an endpoint to terminate the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product did not support DTMF codes with the exception of password provision. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 16
  • After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product did not support DTMF codes with the exception of password provision. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 14 - Conference Requires Chairperson to Start In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a conference to start only when the chairperson present. To prove this capability, we created a conference that requires the chairperson to start. From one of the endpoints, we dialed into the conference as a participant. If the endpoint was put on hold, we then used another endpoint and dialed into the conference as a chairperson. If both endpoints entered the conference, then we would know that the conference required a chairperson to start Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference with Start Conf Requires Chairperson enabled. We dialed into the conference as a participant and were put on hold. We then used a separate endpoint and dialed into the conference as the chairperson. At this point, the conference started, and thus proved the start of this test. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we determined that this product was unable to create a conference where participants are put on hold until the chairperson enters the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass The TANDBERG MCU does not support a chairperson or leader privileges; therefore, the conference cannot detect when a chairperson or leader enters the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The TANDBERG MPS does not support a chairperson or leader privileges; therefore, the conference cannot detect when a chairperson or leader enters the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 15 - Participant Identification – entering a conference In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by prompting each connection to a conference to record their name which will be replayed to announce their entry in to the conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference with identification required. From one endpoint, we dialed into the conference and verified that it prompted for our name upon entering a conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference with IVR settings set to rollcall enabled. We dialed into the conference with one endpoint and were prompted for our name before entering the conference. At this point, the conference started, and thus proved the start of this test. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a conference that prompted us for our name upon entering the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass The TANDBERG MCU does not support prompting for participant names. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The TANDBERG MPS does not support prompting for participant names. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 17
  • Test case 16 - Participant Identification – leaving a conference In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that when a connection to a conference is terminated, the name recorded prior to entry will announce its departure. To prove this capability, we created a conference with identification required. From two endpoints, we dialed into the conference and when prompted, we announced our name. We then disconnected one endpoint from the conference and verified that the other conference connection received the announcement of leaving the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference with Roll Call enabled in the IVR settings. We connected to the conference using two endpoints. Upon entering the conference, we were prompted for our names, which we entered as instructed. We then had one of the endpoints disconnect for the conference. The name of the disconnecting endpoint was then announced to the conference as was heard by the remaining endpoint. The ability to hear the disconnecting endpoint proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. Since participant identification is not taken during the conference, the RADVISION MCU is unable to provide automatic participant identification upon leaving the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. We were able to find a capability for a tone upon exiting the call. Since participant identification is not taken during the conference, the TANDBERG MCU is unable to provide automatic participant identification upon leaving the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using the administration console, we created a conference. However, we were unable to create conference that would prompt for participant identification upon entering the conference call. We were able to find a capability for a tone upon exiting the call. Since participant identification is not taken during the conference, the TANDBERG MPS is unable to provide automatic participant identification upon leaving the conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 17 - Automatic Participant Identification by Name In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by identifying each participant by name when entering a conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference and connected one endpoint to the conference. Using the administration console, we monitored the connection of a participant into a conference and confirmed that the identification of the participant by name and was consistent with the actual endpoint that entered the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the administration console, we created a conference. We then used an endpoint to dial into the conference. The Polycom MCU prompted us to enter the conference identification and password. Once accepted into the conference, the MCU detected and identified the connection by name. The Polycom MCU performs this function by storing information about the participant in a local Access database managed by the Polycom administration console. The ability to provide this information proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 18
  • After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant by name. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Final After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to find any information regarding the ability to use a conference ID and password to identify the endpoint participant by name. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 18 - Roll Call In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by being able to replay all the names recorded prior to entering a conference, during the conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference with identification required. From two endpoints, we dialed into the conference. From one endpoint, we then requested a roll call of all connected endpoints. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with Roll Call enabled in the IVR settings. We created the conference and dialed into it as a participant. The MCU prompted us to enter our name, followed by the “#” sign. We followed these instructions and we were entered into the conference. We connected to the conference call using an additional endpoint but with a different name. From one of the endpoints, we selected the DTMF code (*33) to request a roll call of all participants. We received the roll call announcement. The confirmation of the roll call proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we were unable to create a conference that prompted us for names at the start of the conference, and use these names for a manual roll call. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 19 - Automatic Dial Out In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by enabling the conference to automatically connect predefined participants when initiated. To prove this capability, we created a conference with predefined participants. Using an endpoint, we called into the conference and determined if the predefined participants received a call from the conference Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with two predefined participants. We dialed into the conference and the MCU immediately dialed out to the two predefined participant endpoints. The confirmation of the predefined call proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Although the conference can define specific invites for a conference call, the conference will not automatically dial out to them when the call is initiated by the chair. From the endpoint, we can invite another endpoint by typing Conference prefix and ID + ** + the endpoint that we want to invite. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 19
  • The TANDBERG 16+16 MCU allows the administrator to create a conference and add participants. It will start this conference and dial out immediately once the conference is created. However, since the conference is created well before a call is desired to start or it’s scheduled start time, it cannot respond to a call leader starting the call and respond by calling out to conference participants. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The TANDBERG MPS allows the administrator to create a conference and add participants. It will start this conference and dial out immediately once the conference is created. However, since the conference is created well before a call is desired to start or it’s scheduled start time, it cannot respond to a call leader starting the call and respond by calling out to conference participants. Test case 20 - Operator Assisted Routing In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing participants to be acknowledged and vetted first by a video operator before being manually placed into the destination conference. To prove this capability, we created a conference that required operator assistance. Using one endpoint, we created an operator conference. We then attempted to dial into the conference from a second endpoint and verified that an operator attended the call and placed us in our targeted conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an operator conference. To create an attended wait, we selected Msg Service Type to be Attended (Wait). We then dialed into the conference as a participant and requested assistance. The attendant monitored our assistance request using the administration console and moved us into the requested conference. The confirmation of the ability to get routed to the correct conference via operator assistance proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that for operator assistance, the participant must dial the operator number. The documentation states to "Enter the number of the delegated operator which the MCU dials when the operator invitation selected in the Conference Control interface during a conference. The operator is invited to join the conference for consultation and to provide support.” For this action to work as desired, the calling participant must call from within a conference; therefore, it cannot make a call to an operator for routing assistance. The confirmation of the inability to get routed to the correct conference via operator assistance proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support operator assistance of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support operator assistance of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 21 - Request Private Operator Assistance In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing a participant to request private operator assistance during a conference. Once acknowledged, the requesting participant and operator can hear and see each other in complete privacy before being placed back into the original conference. To prove this capability, we created and started a conference that provided operator assistance. Using one endpoint, we created an operator conference. We then dialed into the conference from a second endpoint, requested assistance, and then rejoin the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an operator conference and dialed into the operator conference. We then created a new conference and dialed into as a participant. We used the DTMF code to be taken out of the conference and Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 20
  • request assistance. The DTMF code we used was *0. We then waited for the operator for assistance. Once the operator became available and saw our request on the administration console, we were taken into a private conference with the operator and then moved back into the destination conference. The confirmation of the ability to receive private operator assistance proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We first created a conference and dialed into the conference. We used the DTMF code to be taken out of the conference and request assistance. The DTMF code we used was *0. When we used this DTMF code, we were not taken out of the conference call and operator assistance was not raised on the administration console. The confirmation of the inability to receive private operator assistance proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 22 - Secure Breakout or Sidebar Session In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by allowing any number of conference participants to be moved securely and seamlessly from one conference to another and rejoined without disconnection. Each conference is completely independent and secure of the original with video and audio streams isolated to each conference. To prove this capability, we created and started several isolated conferences. We added four participants to a conference. We separated two participants from the conference without disconnection and validated that the audio and video streams were separate. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created two conferences, conference 55 and 56, both with quad views. We dialed four endpoints into conference 55. We then highlighted two of the endpoints in the administration console, right-clicked on them, and selected to move them to conference 56. The two endpoints that we selected were moved to conference 56, so now there were two private conferences each with two participants. Confirmation of the ability to create two private conferences from one conference without participant disconnection proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created two conferences. We dialed into one of the conferences with four endpoints. We were unable to move the participants from one conference to another conference via the administration console. Additionally, the DTMF code required to move the audio into a subconference (*71) did not move the participant into a subconference. We were required to move the participant into the subconference via the management console. Confirmation of the inability to create two private conferences from one conference without participant disconnection proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support conference separation or breakout of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support private operator assistance request of any sort. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 21
  • Test case 23 - Decreasing Password Attempts In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by restricting the number of password attempts to enter a conference before being disconnected. Protecting a conference for example with a single attempt of entering a password adds an additional level of security. To prove this capability, we defined and started a conference with a single logon attempt. We dialed into the conference and entered an incorrect password multiple times. We validated that the number of login attempts equaled the preset value. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first set the number of user input tries in the IVR Msg Services to three. We then created a conference with this IVR setting. We attempted to dial into the conference three times using an incorrect password. After the third attempt, the MCU automatically disconnected us from the conference queue. Confirmation of the ability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass When we used the RADVISION MCU, we were given three chances to enter the correct password before being disconnected from the password entry queue. After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login attempts. This product does provide security by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however, the inability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass When we used the TANDBERG MCU, we were given a set fixed time and to enter a fixed number of password entry attempts. We were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login attempts or how to change the total available time to enter the password. This product does provide security by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however, the inability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass When we used the TANDBERG MPS, we were given a set fixed time and to enter a fixed number of password entry attempts. We were unable to determine how to change the number of invalid password login attempts or how to change the total available time to enter the password. This product does provide security by limiting the number of invalid password attempts; however, the inability to set decreasing password attempts proved that this test did not pass. Test case 24 - Failed Conference Access In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security as any participants who fail to enter a valid conference password for any reason would be automatically placed on hold. To prove this capability, we defined and started a conference with a single logon attempt. We dialed into the conference, entered an incorrect password, and waited to be put on hold. We used the administration console to identify participants placed on hold pending operator assistance. We validated this test case by finding participants on hold in the administration console and attending to them. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an operator assistance conference. We then created a standard conference and dialed into this conference as a participant. We entered an invalid password and were placed in the operator queue on the MCU. From the administration console, we were able to see the endpoint that was requesting assistance and send this endpoint into the operator conference for assistance. Confirmation of the ability to be moved into an operator assistance queue due to a did not pass conference access proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created a conference and dialed into this conference as a participant. We entered an invalid password and were allowed to retry entering a correct password three times. We were then disconnected from the conference. It appears that there is no administration console setting that allows us to have participants move to operator assist upon a failed conference access. Confirmation of the inability to be moved into an operator assistance queue due to a failed conference access proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 22
  • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU does not support a feature to put a participant on hold and assist them with password problems. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support a feature to put a participant on hold and assist them with password problems. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 25 - Secure Non-Password Conference In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased security by forcing dial out systems to acknowledge connection to the MCU with a DTMF tone when prompted. If no response is detected the connection will be terminated, eliminating connection to endpoints where it may be set to auto answer, where no one is present or to passive recording devices. To prove this capability, we defined and started a conference with a dial out participant defined. If the endpoint failed to respond when prompted for a DTMF tone, such as an answer machine might respond, then the MCU should disconnect that endpoint from the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We defined a conference with a dial out participant defined. We created the conference and then dialed into the conference using one of the endpoints. We then initiated the conference to dial out to the defined dial out participant. The conference dialed out and waited for a response from the new endpoint. When it received no response, then the conference disconnected the endpoint. Confirmation of the ability to disconnect an insecure non-password endpoint proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint. The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the dialed endpoint regardless of whether the connecting party was the correct connection. Confirmation to connect to unknown endpoints proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint. The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the dialed endpoint without DTMF code confirmation. Confirmation to connect to unknown endpoints proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We created a conference by dialing into a new conference definition. We then dialed out to a new endpoint. The conference dialed out and immediately connected the new endpoint. The conference connected to the dialed endpoint without DTMF code confirmation. Confirmation to connect to unknown endpoints proved that this test did not pass. Test case 26 - Administration Hierarchy In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated an administration hierarchy. This hierarchy is a set of profiles that administrators can assign, or be assigned to, to enable or restrict access capabilities according to their needs. Assigning administrators with different profiles and rights provides greater security to the overall system. Using the administration console, we determined the number of levels of permissions that the administration console allowed us to create. Polycom MGC-100 After reviewing the Polycom MCU documentation, we found that the MGC Manager administration console supported three levels of operators. They were: 1. Attendant Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 23
  • 2. Ordinary 3. Superuser The attendant operator can only define and manage new conferences, gateway sessions, meeting rooms, and participants. The attendant operator does not have access to the MCU Configuration icon and MCU Utilities. Ordinary operators can perform all the tasks an attendant operator does. In addition, ordinary operators can also view the configurations of the modules in the MGC-100. Superuser operators can perform all tasks attendant and ordinary operators do. In addition, superuser operators can define and delete other operators, and define network services. While ordinary operators can view the configurations of the modules in the MGC-100, only the superuser operator can modify the configuration of a module. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the RADVISION system allowed two levels of access privileges. They were: 1. Chair controller 2. User Additionally, the system offers two levels of console management. They were: 1. Operator 2. Administrator TANDBERG MCU 16+16 After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU could not assign different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level. Figure 12. TANDBERG 16+16 MCU System Configuration, Miscellaneous Configuration dialog box TANDBERG MPS After reviewing the RADVISION MPS documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS could not assign different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 24
  • Figure 13. TANDBERG MPS MCU System Configuration, Miscellaneous Configuration Settings dialog box Test case 27 - Administration Login Identification In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by identifying all login connections to the MCU. The MCU should provide the name, profile date of login and device. To prove this capability, we identified the current administration connections to the MCU by name and profile. We also measured the ability to see who is logged in and how they are logged in. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Within the Polycom Administration console, by selecting the Connections drilldown icon on the left, we could determine that we were the only connection logged into the MGC manager. We could also determine that we were a superuser, our administration name, when we connected, from what location, and using which protocol. Confirmation of the ability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Within the RADVISION MCU administration console, we were unable to determine which users are logged in the console. The system allows the first administrator to enter into the console and is granted full permissions. All others who then connect to the console are granted read-only privileges. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Within the TANDBERG MCU administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Within the TANDBERG MPS administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. Test case 28 - Conference Countdown to Termination In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated increased conference security by terminating a conference definition after a set number of activations. To prove this capability, we set a conference to terminate after two activations. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created an instance of a meeting room object and set the number of occurrences to be two in the Meet Me per Conference dialog box. We dialed in to the conference twice and after each disconnection, the MCU reduced the number of conference activations by one in the Meet Me per Conference dialog box. After we Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 25
  • accessed the meeting twice, the conference definition was deleted and we were unable to activate the conference further. Based on this feature capability, we proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that this MCU does not support conference termination after a specific number of activations. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that conferences could only be terminated manually. We were able to terminate the conference only by manually terminating the conference in the administration console. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that conferences could only be terminated manually. We were able to terminate the conference only by manually terminating the conference in the administration console. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. In summary, the Polycom MGC-100 system passed all 27 test cases, as compared to five passed by the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU and one by the TANDBERG 16+16 and MPS MCU products. Additionally, as shown in test case 26, the Polycom MCU demonstrated three levels of administration hierarchy, compared to two levels for the RADVISION MCU and one level for the TANDBERG MCU. Overall, the Polycom MCU demonstrated the most complete set of security and authentication feature capabilities of the MCU products in our review. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 26
  • Versatility Testing The Versatility test cases focus on determining the product’s ability to provide a maximum level of versatility through the set of features provided by each MCU under test. Within versatility testing, we tested features related to transcoding, continuous presence, conference routing, conference types, and resource management. Test cases 29 through 33 address the ability of each MCU to perform transcoding. Transcoding is the process of converting a media stream from one format to another. When related to MCU functionality, transcoding is the process of managing audio and video stream information from endpoints with different bandwidth connections, different video protocols and formatting capabilities and different audio algorithms in such a manner so that they can work together successfully within a single conference at their optimum capabilities. To measure the transcoding capabilities for test cases 29 through 33, we generated multiple conference streams into the MCU under test. This methodology allowed us to inject many conferences with fixed parameters, such as protocols, formats, and algorithms into the MCU under test and verify the maximum number of unique audio and video streams that the MCU was able to successfully transcode. To generate a large number of unique streams, we used a Polycom MGC-100 MCU to create specific conference parameters and the connected into the MCU under test with these fixed parameters. As can be seen in Figure 16, we connected this MCU into our test bed network. Test case 29 - Transcoding Bandwidths In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported bandwidths up to two Mbps can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of bandwidths in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths: • 64 kbps • 128 kbps • 192 kbps • 256 kbps • 384 kbps • 320 kbps • 512 kbps • 768 kbps • 1152 kbps • 1472 kbps • 1536 kbps • 1920 kbps Polycom MGC-100 We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The following list is a set of the streams that we used during our testing. The bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the bandwidth settings. • 64 kbps, H.261, CIF • 128 kbps, H.261, CIF • 192 kbps, H.261, CIF • 256 kbps, H.261, CIF • 320 kbps, H.261, CIF • 384 kbps, H.261, CIF • 512 kbps, H.261, CIF • 768 kbps, H.261, CIF • 1152 kbps, H.261, CIF • 1472 kbps, H.261, CIF Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 27
  • • 1536 kbps, H.261, CIF • 1920 kbps, H.261, CIF We were able to connect these 12 streams, each with a unique bandwidth into a single conference on the Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all bandwidth requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple bandwidths proved that this MCU was able to transcode all available bandwidth capabilities. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings with different bandwidths. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation. Notice that the button that allows the user to create additional streams, the Add button, became disabled after three video scheme settings has been created. Figure 14. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU View Settings dialog box If we edit the first setting in the list, and change the mode from Basic to Non_Transcoding, then we are able to return to the View Settings Screen and add a fourth video scheme setting. However, we were able to perform this only when the Max Layout Continuous Presence is set to Full Screen. If we change the Max Layout to Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 28
  • anything other than Full Screen, then we are unable to add more than three video scheme settings. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple bandwidths proved that this MCU was able to transcode all available bandwidth capabilities. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two bandwidth points for transcoding. The first two bandwidths that connect to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the bandwidth of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the bandwidth of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference is equal to this newest bandwidth. Additionally, we found confirming documentation in Section 4.4.4.3 of the document entitled “Technical Description of TANDBERG MCU with software version D2 (TANDBERG D12925 Rev. 02)”. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to rate match multiple input streams to a maximum of two transcoded bandwidth outputs. TANDBERG MPS Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two bandwidth points for transcoding. The first two bandwidths that connect to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the bandwidth of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the bandwidth of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to this latest bandwidth. Additionally, we found confirming documentation in the document entitled “MPS User Manual.” in Section 6.2.3 on the Enhanced Video Transcoding of this document. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to rate match multiple input streams to a maximum of two transcoded bandwidth outputs. Test case 30 - Transcoding Video Protocols In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported video protocols can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of video protocols in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths: • H.261 • H.263 • H.264 Polycom MGC-100 We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the video protocol settings. • 64 kbps, H.261, CIF • 64 kbps, H.263, CIF • 64 kbps, H.264, CIF We were able to connect these three streams, each with a unique video protocol into a single conference on the Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all protocol Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 29
  • requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple video protocol proved that this MCU was able to transcode all available video protocol capabilities. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings with different video protocols. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation. When we tested the RADVISION MCU using the on-board video card, i.e. MVP mode, we were able to transcode using only H.261 and H.263 video protocols. H.264 was unavailable. When we tested the MCU card, i.e. MP mode, we than we able to select H.261, H.263, and H.264, but only in non-transcoded conference. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two video protocols for transcoding. The first two video protocols that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to this latest video protocol. Additionally, when we created a conference and successfully connected a H.261 endpoint, and connected a H.263 endpoint. When we connected a H.264 endpoint in to the conference, the conference terminated in the administration console. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of two distinct video protocol outputs. TANDBERG MPS Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MPS interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two video protocols for transcoding. The first two video protocols that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to this latest video protocol. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MPS was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of two distinct video protocol outputs. Test case 31 - Transcoding Video Formats In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported video formats can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of video formats in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths: • QCIF • CIF • 4CIF Polycom MGC-100 We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the video format settings. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 30
  • • 64 kbps, H.263, CIF • 64 kbps, H.263, QCIF • 64 kbps, H.263, 4CIF We were able to connect these three streams, each with a unique video format into a single conference on the Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all formatting requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple video format proved that this MCU was able to transcode all available video format capabilities. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings with different bandwidths. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation. If the Maximum Layout is set to Voice-Switched, i.e. one view at a time, then we were able to choose between CIF and QCIF. If the Maximum Layout setting employed two or more views, then only the CIF video format was available for all streams. Additionally, we found that the additional video scheme settings below settings number one inherited the resolution set in setting number one. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two video formats for transcoding. The first two video formats that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then a new lower limit will be established for the conference equal to this latest video format. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MPS was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of two distinct video format outputs. TANDBERG MPS Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MPS interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two video formats for transcoding. The first two video formats that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then the new lower limit that will be for the conference is equal to this newest video format. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to accept multiple input streams to a maximum of two distinct video format outputs. Test case 32 - Transcoding Audio Algorithms In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported audio algorithms can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of audio algorithms in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition and dial into the conference using the following bandwidths: • G.711 • G.722.1 • G.728 • G.722 • G.723.1 Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 31
  • • G.729 Polycom MGC-100 We used the second Polycom MGC-100 MCU to generate the following unique audio and video streams. The bolded parameters illustrate that the transcoding focused on the audio algorithm settings. • 384 kbps, H.263, CIF with G.722.1 • 1152 kbps, H.261, CIF with G.711 • 256 kbps, H.264 with G.728 • 384 kbps, H.261, QCIF with G.722 • 384 kbps, H.263, CIF with G.723.1 • 1152 kbps, H.261, CIF with G.729 We were able to connect these six streams, each with a unique audio algorithm into a single conference on the Polycom MCU. We inspected the properties of each incoming connection to ensure that all audio algorithm requirements were met and validated that conference transcoding was being performed by the MCU as expected. Confirmation of the ability to transcode multiple audio algorithm proved that this MCU was able to transcode all available audio algorithm capabilities. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create audio settings with different audio algorithm. As part of the conference definition, the audio codecs that are supported and the order in which they are selected form part of the conference definition. We found that the user interface allowed us to transcode six audio algorithms. Figure 15 shows the audio algorithm user interface. In summary, we found that the RADVISION MCU was able to transcode the six supported audio algorithms. Figure 15. RADVISION audio settings dialog TANDBERG MCU 16+16 Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. As we added new endpoints into the conference, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to transcode four of the six supported audio algorithms. This MCU was able to transcode G.722, G.711, G.728, and G.722.1. TANDBERG MPS Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. As we added new endpoints into the conference, we Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 32
  • found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to transcode four of the six supported audio algorithms. This MCU was able to transcode G.722, G.711, G.728, and G.722.1. Test case 33 - Transcoding All In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that all supported bandwidths, video protocols, video formats, and audio algorithms can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration and that by facilitating any combination of connectivity parameters in a single conference improves connectivity and reliability. We will test this capability by creating a conference definition and dial into the conference with two variations from each of the four categories identified previously. For example, here are several variations: • 64 kbps - H.264 – CIF – G.711 • 128 kbps - H.263 – 4CIF – G.728 • 256 kbps - H.261 – CIF – G.722.1 etc… Polycom MGC-100 We generated 54 connections, each of them with forced connection protocol, formats, bandwidths, and audio algorithms from the testbed Polycom MGC-100 MCU. Additionally, we connected eight endpoints to the MGC- 100 without forced connection protocols. Using the 54 forced connections and the eight endpoints allowed us to connect 62 simultaneously transcoded connections. The 62 connection types that we successfully connected to the Polycom MGC-100 MCU under test are listed in Figure 16. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 33
  • Connections Endpoints 1152 kbps, H261 1472 kbps, H.261, 1920 kbps, H.261, 256 kbps, H.261, 384 kbps, H.261, 64 kbps, H.261, FX1 CIF CIF CIF CIF CIF 1152 kbps, H.261, 1472 kbps, H.261, 1920 kbps, H.261, 256 kbps, H.261, 384 kbps, H.261, 64 kbps, H.261, FX2 QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF 1152 kbps, H.263, 1472 kbps, H.263, 1920 kbps, H.263, 256 kbps, H.263, 384 kbps, H.263, 64 kbps, H.263, FX3 CIF CIF CIF CIF CIF CIF 1152 kbps, H.263, 1472 kbps, H.263, 1920 kbps, H.263, 256 kbps, H.263, 384 kbps, H.263, 64 kbps, H.263, iPower 900 QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF QCIF 128 kbps, H.261, 1536 kbps, H.261, 192 kbps, H.261, 256 kbps, H.264 384 kbps, H.264 64 kbps, H.264 iPower 9000 CIF CIF CIF 128 kbps, H.263, 1536 kbps, H.261, 192 kbps, H.261, 320 kbps, H.261, 512 kbps, H.261, 786 kbps, H.261, TANDBERG 880 QCIF QCIF QCIF CIF CIF CIF 128 kbps, H.263, 1536 kbps, H.263, 192 kbps, H.263, 320 kbps, H.261, 512 kbps, H.261, 786 kbps, H.261, USX 7000 CIF CIF CIF QCIF QCIF QCIF 128 kbps, H.263, 1536 kbps, H.263, 192 kbps, H.263, 320 kbps, H.263, 512 kbps, H.263, 786 kbps, H.263, USX 800 QCIF QCIF QCIF CIF CIF CIF 128 kbps, H.264 320 kbps, H.264 192 kbps, H.264 320 kbps, H.263, 512 kbps, H.263, 786 kbps, H.263, QCIF QCIF QCIF Figure 16. Transcoding conference settings RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Using the administration console, we used the RADVISION MCU interface to create video scheme settings with different transcoding settings. We found a limitation in the user interface that prevented us from creating more than three video scheme settings. Figure 14 shows the user interface with this limitation. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MCU interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two transcoding settings. The first two endpoints that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then the new lower limit that will be for the conference is equal to this newest transcoding setting. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MCU was able to transcode a maximum of two distinct media streams. TANDBERG MPS Using the administration console, we used the TANDBERG MPS interface to create a new conference. We dialed into the conference using several endpoints. We noticed that as we added new endpoints into the conference that the MCU maintained two transcoding settings. The first two endpoints that connected to the conference define the upper and lower limits of the MCU transcoding. If additional endpoints connect to the conference between the upper and lower limits, then the protocol of the latest endpoint entered into the conference will be reduced to meet the lower limit. If the protocol of the latest endpoint entering in the conference is less than the lower limit, then the new lower limit that will be for the conference is equal to this newest transcoding setting. In summary, we found that the TANDBERG MPS was able to transcode a maximum of two distinct media streams. For test cases 34 through 37, we used information from product datasheets to determine the MCU feature capabilities. We used the following datasheets for these test cases: Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 34
  • • Polycom MGC-100 datasheet: http://www.polycom.com/common/pw_cmp_updateDocKeywords/0,1687,3013,00.pdf • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU datasheet: http://www.radvision.com/NR/rdonlyres/AFA62E3E-9ADD-4702-BE01- DE4C44E19D4D/2335/ViaIPMCU35Datasheet.pdf • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 datasheet: http://www.tandberg.net/collateral/product_brochures/TANDBERG_MCU.pdf • TANDBERG MPS datasheet: http://www.tandberg.net/collateral/product_brochures/TANDBERG_MPS.pdf Test case 34 - Transcoding Application Layer In this test case, we determined the MCU illustrated that connections from H.323, H.320 and SIP devices can coexist in the same MCU without the use of additional external gateway devices. We reviewed the product datasheet of each product to determine the capability of each MCU. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed As shown in Figure 17, the Polycom MCU offers H.323, H.320 and SIP connections in the same MCU. The gateway is located onboard with the Polycom MGC-100; therefore, it is able to perform this functionality without the use of an additional external gateway device. Figure 17. Polycom Transcoding information from datasheet RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass As shown in Figure 18, the RADVISION MCU offers H.323, H.320, and SIP connections in the same MCU; however, the RADVISION gateway product is offered in a separate package from the MCU; therefore, it cannot perform this functionality without the use of an additional external gateway. Figure 18. RADVISION Multi-View information from datasheet TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 35
  • As shown in Figure 19, the TANDBERG MCU appears to offer only H.323 and H.320 connections. Figure 19. TANDBERG 16+16 support information from datasheet TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass As shown in Figure 20, the TANDBERG MPS appears to offer only H.323 and H.320 connections. Figure 20. TANDBERG MPS support information from datasheet Test case 35 - Transcoding Presentation Layer In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that connections from PRI, V.35 and Ethernet can coexist in the same without the use of additional external gateway devices. We reviewed the product datasheet of each product to determine the capability of each MCU. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed As shown in Figure 21, the Polycom MCU offers PRI, V.35, and Ethernet in the same MCU. The gateway is located onboard with the Polycom MGC-100; therefore, it is able to perform this functionality without the use of an additional gateway device. Figure 21. Polycom Transcoding information from datasheet RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass As shown in Figure 22 and 23, the RADVISION MCU offers PRI, V.35, and Ethernet in the same MCU; however, the RADVISION gateway product is offered in a separate package viaIP Gateway product, as Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 36
  • shown in the footnote figure. Therefore, it cannot perform this functionality without the use of an additional gateway. Figure 22. RADVISION Interfaces information from datasheet Figure 23. RADVISION footnote from datasheet TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Based on our evaluation of the datasheet, the TANDBERG MCU appears not offer V.35 connections. TANDBERG MPS - Passed As shown in Figure 24, the TANDBERG MPS offers PRI, V.35, and Ethernet in the same MCU. Figure 24. TANDBERG MPS support information from datasheet Test case 36 - T.120 Support In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that the system provides T.120 support. We reviewed the product datasheet of each product to determine the capability of each MCU. Polycom MGC-100 Based on our review of the Polycom MCU datasheet, we found that this MCU supported the T.120 standard. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Based on our review of the RADVISION MCU datasheet, we found that this MCU supported the T.120 standard. TANDBURG MCU 16+16 Based on our review of the TANDBERG MCU datasheet, we found that this MCU did not support the T.120 standard. TANDBURG MPS Based on our review of the TANDBERG MPS datasheet, we found that this MCU did not support the T.120 standard. Test case 37 - Standard H.239 Support In this test case, we determined the MCU illustrated that the system provides H.239 support. We reviewed the product datasheet of each product to determine the capability of each MCU. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 37
  • Polycom MGC-100 - Passed As shown in Figure 25, the Polycom MCU provides H.239 support. Figure 25. Polycom Transcoding information from datasheet RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed As shown in Figure 26, the RADVISION MCU offers H.239 support. Figure 26. RADVISION Supported Protocols from datasheet TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Based on our evaluation of the datasheet, the TANDBERG MCU appears not offer H.239 support. TANDBERG MPS – Passed As shown in Figure 27, the TANDBERG MPS offers H.239 support. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 38
  • Figure 27. TANDBERG MPS Supported Protocols from datasheet Test case 38 - Continuous Presence In this test case, we determined if the MCU has the ability to customize and select which layout will be used when using automatic layout selection. To test for this feature, we will create a conference definition with auto continuous presence enabled. We will connect three endpoints in turn and observe the continuous presence layouts used as each endpoint is connected. We will then customize the auto continuous presence feature to provide an alternative selection of continuous presence layouts and repeat the process. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference definition with auto continuous presence enabled. To set auto continuous presence, we selected the video sources tab form the conference and selected the Auto Format checkbox. We connected one endpoint to the conference and saw a full screen of ourselves. We then connected a second endpoint and saw a full-screen view of the other participant only. We then connected a third endpoint and saw a vertically split screen view of the other two participants. We ended this conference and changed the config.cfg file to modify the auto continuous presence selection so that when three endpoints have joined a continuous presence conference, that the endpoint displays a horizontally split screen view of the other two participants. We repeated the test and ensured that when three endpoints have joined, the endpoint displays a horizontally split screen view of the other two participants. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We changed the settings to define the initial and maximum layouts to be different. We then enabled the Use Dynamic Layout checkbox so that the system would perform auto continuous presence. We then created a conference with dynamic layout enabled. We connected one endpoint to the conference and saw a full screen of ourselves. We then connected a second endpoint and saw two images, one of us and one of the other endpoint. We then connected a third endpoint and saw a three-participant continuous presence. We then overrode the auto continuous presence feature to create a specific continuous presence layout; however, this layout could not adapt to any further additional participants and was fixed for the remainder of the existing conference. Additionally, we did not find a configuration setting that allowed us to modify the manner in which the Dynamic Layout feature behaved on future conferences. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 39
  • We created a conference with Picture Mode set to Auto. We connected one endpoint to the conference and saw a full screen of ourselves. We then connected a second endpoint and saw a full-screen view of the other participant only. We connected a third endpoint and got a 5+1 continuous presence layout, which displayed all three endpoints, including ourselves. We then changed the Picture Mode from Auto (which is Enhanced Mode) to Traditional CP Mode, which then automatically changed the continuous presence across all endpoints to a CP4 view, i.e. four images symmetrically displayed, that displayed the three participants and one empty section. However, we did not find a configuration setting that allowed us to modify the manner in which the priority of Picture Modes was presented. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We created a conference with Picture Mode set to Auto. We connected one endpoint to the conference and saw a full screen of ourselves. We then connected a second endpoint and saw a full-screen view of the other participant only. We connected a third endpoint and got a 5+1 continuous presence layout, which displayed all three endpoints, including ourselves. We then changed the Picture Mode from Auto (which is Enhanced Mode) to Traditional CP Mode, which then automatically changed the continuous presence across all endpoints to a CP4 view, i.e. four images symmetrically displayed, that displayed the three participants and one empty section. However, we did not find a configuration setting that allowed us to modify the manner in which the priority of Picture Modes was presented. Test case 39 - Private Layout In this test case, we determined if the MCU provides the ability to enable participants to choose and receive their own personal continuous presence layout. Providing private continuous presence views means that participants can select a different continuous presence layout without affecting the main continuous presence conference view. To test for this feature, we created a conference definition and connected five endpoints. We then changed the layout to override the default layout on a single endpoint without affecting the main continuous presence conference view. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference and connected five endpoints. We selected the DTMF code to start the Polycom Click & View feature (**) on the local endpoint. We successfully changed the local continuous presence layout without affecting the main continuous presence conference view. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created a conference and connected five endpoints. We were unable to use DTMF codes to change the local layout from an endpoint. We were able to create a conference to display different layouts on different endpoints by predefining the conference by creating different conference views, up to a maximum of three, where specific video streams would be associated with specific layouts. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support DTMF codes or personal layouts. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support DTMF codes or personal layouts. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 40 - Chairperson Layout Change In this test case, we determined if the MCU has the ability to manually change the conference continuous presence layout during a conference to alternative continuous presence layout without operator or web access. To test for this feature, we created a conference definition and connected five endpoints. We then changed the continuous presence layout to override the default layout on all endpoints without operator or web access. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 40
  • Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference and connected five endpoints. Using the DTMF codes, we changed one of the endpoints to chairperson privileges. We selected the DTMF code to start the Polycom Click & View feature (**) on the local endpoint. We successfully changed the local default continuous presence view on all endpoints to a new continuous presence view. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created a conference and connected five endpoints. We were unable to use DTMF codes to change the continuous presence view on all endpoints. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support DTMF codes. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support DTMF codes. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 41 - Virtual Classroom In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated the ability to create a classroom or lecture conference that can show the tutor in full-screen view to the students and the students in continuous presence layout to the tutor. To test for this feature, we created a conference definition that provides two different continuous presence layouts, for example one full-screen layout and one 16-way layout. We defined the tutor to receive the 16-way layout and undefined systems, or students, to receive full screen layout. The tutor should receive a continuous presence view and undefined connections should receive full screen layout. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference with a 16-way continuous presence view. In the video sources settings, we then selected Lecture Mode and preset the endpoint from which the lecturer would transmit. We started the conference, and connected one tutor and four students to the conference. We verified that all of the students were able to view the lecturer full screen and that the lecturer viewed all of the students in the continuous presence view. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Based on the graphical user interface on the RADVISION MCU, we were unable to create a conference with two views that when combined, exceeded the value 16 in a single conference. For example, we attempted to create a conference with one single view layout full screen and a 16-way view layout. Because the total equated to 17 we were unable to proceed. Additionally, we could not create a conference to preset the specific endpoint location of the lecturer and of the tutors. We were required to create the conference to set a bandwidth (or a specific video scheme) to communicate the difference between the lecturer and the tutor endpoints. For this test case, we used bandwidth. Once participants had joined the conference, we were then able to use the administration console to define which participant was the lecturer. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support more than one continuous presence layout in the same conference. Additionally, all endpoints receive the same continuous presence layout. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support more than one continuous presence layout in the same conference. Additionally, all endpoints receive the same continuous presence layout. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 41
  • Test case 42 - Broadcast Mode In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated that a conference can be created to automatically mute audio & video streams from participants upon connection to the MCU and only receive audio & video from the defined lecturer of the conference. To test for this feature, we created a conference definition that started and enabled participants to join an ongoing conference, and upon connection automatically have their audio and video muted. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference with a quad view and modified the layout to be a 16-way view. In the video sources settings, we then selected LectureShow Mode. We started the conference, and connected one tutor and four students to the conference. We verified that all of the students had both audio and video muted upon joining the conference and that they only received audio and video from the tutor. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We were able to start a conference with audio muted. We did this by enabling the conference participants Initially Muted checkbox in the Audio Settings dialog box. However, we were unable to mute the video initially upon connecting to the conference. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support automatic muting of audio and video upon entering a conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support automatic muting of audio and video upon entering a conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 43 - CNN Continuous Presence View We determined if the MCU could switch between displaying the current speaker full screen and the chosen continuous presence layout for the conference. To test for this feature, we created a conference definition that started with a continuous presence layout and switched to full screen when the speaker remained the only speaker for a specific number of seconds, and returned to the continuous presence mode when more than one speaker was detected. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference with a quad view and modified the layout to be a 16-way view. In the video sources settings, we then selected Presentation Mode. We set the time to recognize a new speaker to be 15 seconds. We started the conference and connected four endpoints to the conference. We verified that as each endpoint spoke for 15 seconds, each endpoint received the full screen view. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We created a conference and connected three endpoints. We created an established primary speaker and verified that the view changed to Zoom In on the endpoint with the primary speaker. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU does not support continuous presence layout changes due to speaker activity. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS does not support continuous presence layout changes due to speaker activity. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 42
  • Test case 44 - Conference Direct Inward Dial (DID) Number Routing In this test case, we determined if the MCU could route participants to a conference by using a dedicated DID number per conference. To test for this feature, we connected three endpoints into the same conference by dialing the same number on each system. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a new conference and selected the Meet me Per Conference checkbox. We then selected the Meet Me per conference property and recorded the dial in number for this conference. We connected into a single conference by dialing three endpoints and joined the same conference. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We created and connected into a single conference by dialing 80353 on three endpoints. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed The TANDBERG MCU administration console was configured such that each specific conference had a dedicated number; therefore, an endpoint could dial this number and enter the conference successfully. See Figure 28 for an illustration on how the TANDBERG administration console interface required specific conference dial in numbers. Figure 28. TANDBERG MCU Dial in Number Assignment TANDBERG MPS - Passed The TANDBERG MPS administration console was configured such that each specific conference had a dedicated number; therefore, an endpoint could dial this number and enter the conference successfully. See Figure 29 for an illustration on how the TANDBERG administration console interface required specific conference dial in numbers. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 43
  • Figure 29. TANDBERG MPS Dial in Number Assignment Test case 45 - Different Number Conference ID Routing In this test case, we determined if the MCU could route participants to a conference by dialing different numbers, such as entry queues, and then be routed to the same conference using the same conference ID. To test for this feature, we connected three endpoints into the same conference by dialing different access numbers followed by the same conference ID. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three entry queues, each with a unique IVR Message Service. To connect to the conference, we entered the conference prefix “20205,” and then appended the entry queue number, one, two, or three. Therefore, the three numbers that we dialed on the endpoints were “202051,” “202052,” and “202053.” RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We found that the RADVISION MCU defines a conference by a conference prefix number, followed by a specific conference ID number. For example, a conference prefix could be “80353” and a conference ID could be 1. Thus, a specific conference could be given the number “803531”, and therefore an endpoint must dial this number to enter this conference. Confirmation of the inability of this MCU to require different numbers to reach this conference proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MCU connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MPS connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 46 - Participant Number Routing In this test case, we determined if the MCU could route participants to a conference by using dedicated dial in numbers assigned to each participant without knowledge of their real destination conference. To test for this feature, we connected three endpoints into the same conference by dialing a different number on each system. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 44
  • Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three conferences. In each conference, we selected a single predefined endpoint. When we dialed into the conference from a specific endpoint, the MCU recognized our calling location and identified us. The MCU then placed each endpoint into the correct conference where the participant had been predefined. We then moved these participants between the three conferences to ensure that the participant still reached their destination conference using the same number. Confirmation of the ability to create a predefined endpoint for a conference proved that this MCU was able to respond to participant number routing. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that the RADVISION MCU did not support any method of dialing a different number to reach a single conference. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU did not support any method of dialing a different number to reach a single conference. For this MCU, multiple numbers connects the endpoint to multiple conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU did not support any method of dialing a different number to reach a single conference. For this MCU, multiple numbers connects the endpoint to multiple conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 47 - Operator In this test case, we determined if the MCU could support operator conferences that can exist to attend new dial in connections so that they can be personally greeted and vetted before being routed to their destination conference. To test for this feature we created two conferences and using two endpoints we dialed in to the MCU using the number for each conference. Using two operator profiles, we identified and attended to each request simultaneously in privacy and forward to destination conference without disconnection. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created two operator conferences. To create an attended wait, we selected Msg Service Type to be Attended (Wait). We then dialed each endpoint into their respective conference where they were placed on hold with an audio prompted indicating that an operator would attend shortly. An operator monitored and attended each participant using the administration console and moved the endpoints into their destination conference. The confirmation of the ability to be routed to the correct conference via multiple operator assistance proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that The RADVISION MCU does not provide the ability to attend a participant prior to joining a conference and does not support more than one operator at a time, so it cannot scale to additional operators if system loads demand such. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU the does not support operators. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS the does not support operators. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 45
  • Test case 48 - Scheduled In this test case, we determined if the MCU could support that conferences can be scheduled to the MCU. To test for this feature, we scheduled a conference on the MCU to start in the future. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created a conference with a dial out participant. Using the scheduler, we created a conference to start in five minutes. At that time, the MCU dialed out to the endpoint. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that the RADVISION supports scheduled conferences; however, you must purchase the VCS package to get this functionality. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG supports scheduled conferences; however, you must purchase the TMS package to get this functionality. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MPS - Passed After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG supports scheduled conferences; however, you must purchase the TMS package to get this functionality. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. Test case 49 - Ad-hoc Dialing In this test case, we determined if the MCU could support multiple ad-hoc conferences that could be created and started without the need for scheduling. With no conferences running on the MCU, we used the endpoint remote control to dial a given number to supply the numeric conference ID. We used the administration console GUI to confirm that a conference was now running labeled with the numeric ID. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an ad-hoc profile. We then referenced the ad-hoc profile in an entry queue definition. We then dialed into the MCU from an endpoint, using the MCU number “20205” plus the conference ID “1”, for example “202051”. The MCU then prompted us for a password. For whatever number we entered, a conference with that ID number was created and added to the administration console. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We first enabled "Allow conference creation using Scheduler, Web, Control API, and dial-in.” We then created a conference definition with a specific number, “80353.” We used the endpoint to dial in and a conference with that conference definition ID was created. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support conference creation prior to conference start; therefore, there is no ad-hoc conference to dial into. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support conference creation prior to conference start; therefore, there is no ad-hoc conference to dial into. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 46
  • Test case 50 - Ad-hoc Predefined Dialing In this test case, we determined if the MCU could support pre-defined unscheduled conference definitions that do not consume resource prior to the start of the conference. We first created a predefined conference definition with chairperson and participant passwords specific to this conference and checked that this conference did not consume any MCU resources. Without any scheduling we then used the endpoint remote control to dial the given conference number and when prompted, enter the conference password. We used the administration console GUI to confirm that a conference was now running. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an entry queue with default settings. We created a new conference with “Entry Queue Access” enabled. We created an IVR conference with different passwords for the chairperson and participants. We then dialed into the call and connected successfully. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We first created the conference definition that required a password. We then dialed into the conference and we were prompted to provide a password in real-time to initiate the conference. All following connected participants into that conference must use the same password and all participants had the same access level. The RADVIDSION did not allow the ad-hoc creation of a conference with predefined passwords. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using administration console, we were required to manually create an active conference beforehand; therefore, this was not considered an ad-hoc conference. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using administration console, we were required to manually create an active conference beforehand; therefore, this was not considered an ad-hoc conference. Test case 51 - Music on Hold Detection In this test case, we determined if the MCU in an audio only conference could detect hold music from one of the connected endpoints and automatically mute the audio from being broadcasted to the conference. We implemented an endpoint that played hold-music when put on hold. We created and joined a conference call with two endpoints. We put one endpoint on hold and used the second endpoint to determine if the hold music was played to the rest of the conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a standard conference with IVR, and we enabled the “SilenceIT” checkbox. We connected to the conference using two endpoints. We then put one of the endpoints on hold. The one endpoint on hold began to play hold music, but was quickly silenced by the SilenceIT technology on the Polycom MCU. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We created a standard conference and connected to the conference using two endpoints. We put an endpoint on hold that generated hold music. The RADVISION MCU did not appear to detect the hold music and therefore did not mute the endpoint that was generating the hold music. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support suppressing hold music into the conference call when detected. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPG product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support suppressing hold music into the conference call when detected. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 47
  • Test case 52 - Resource Management In this test case, we determined if inactive components or DSPs could be isolated and removed from service without affecting other on-going conferences. For this test, we created a conference and made general observations on the administration console capabilities to isolate and remove components or DSPs. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We were able to list and control the active and inactive components and DSPs using the administration console. As shown in figures 30, the Polycom MCU allowed us to access specific DSP components within the Polycom MGC-100 MCU. We defined and created several conferences on the MCU. We then isolated and disabled inactive DSP components without affecting ongoing conferences. While we performed this component management, we monitored all conferences and connections to ensure that no such changes had an any affect. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass The architecture of the viaIP 400 MCU card does not allow isolation or removal of specific components. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass The architecture of the TANDBERG MCU does not allow isolation or removal of specific components. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The architecture of the TANDBERG MCU does not allow isolation or removal of specific components. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 48
  • Figure 30. Polycom MCU MGC Manager User interface Test case 53 - Resource Reset In this test case, we determined if inactive components or DSPs could be isolated and reset from service without affecting other on-going conferences. For this test, we created a conference and made general observations on the administration console capabilities to isolate and reset components or DSPs. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We were able to list and control active and inactive components and DSPs using the administration console. The Polycom MCU allowed us to access specific DSP components within the Polycom MGC-100 MCU. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 49
  • We defined and created several conferences on the MCU. We then isolated and reset one DSP component without affecting ongoing conferences. While we performed this component management, we monitored all conferences and connections to ensure that no such changes had any affect. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass The architecture of the viaIP 400 MCU card does not allow resetting specific components without resetting the entire card. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass The architecture of the TANDBERG MCU does not allow resetting specific components without resetting the entire system. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The architecture of the TANDBERG MCU does not allow resetting specific components without resetting the entire card. Test case 54 - Multi System View In this test case, we determined if all system management, configuration and scheduling could be performed from the default administration console. We determined if we could view the individual status of multiple MCUs, ongoing conferences and the connection status of participants in an ongoing conference from a same console simultaneously. For this test, we made general observations on the administration console capabilities to view multiple conference objects. Polycom MGC-100 RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG MCU TANDBERG MPS 400 MCU 16+16 View the individual Yes No – To manage a No – To manage a No – To manage a status of multiple second MCU, we are second MCU, we are second MCU, we are MCUs required to open a required to open a required to open a second browser second browser second browser window. window. window. Ongoing Yes No – To manage Yes Yes conferences ongoing conference, we are required to open a second browser window. Connection status Yes No – To get status of No – To manage the No – To manage the of participants in participants, we are conference, we must conference, we must an ongoing required to open a click in the window to click in the window to conference second browser drilldown and retrieve drilldown and window. new information. retrieve new information. Figure 31. Versatility – Customization Test Cases Test case 55 - Integrated Gateway In this test case, we determined if all point-to-point and multipoint gateway sessions could take place on the MCU at the same time without the use of external gateway devices. To test for this feature, we made a point- to-point H.323 to H.320 gateway call from one endpoint to another without any data being transmitted externally. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed To conduct a point-to-point call on the Polycom MCU, we must concatenate the following strings: Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 50
  • Conference prefix + Session Profile ID + *(delimiter) + local PBX prefix + destination ISDN number. Using this method, the number we used was 5020289*55713371111. This number allowed us to do a point-to-point call and since the Polycom architecture does not require an external gateway, we passed this test. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass The RADVISION MCU architecture requires that the gateway be external to the RADVISION MCU; therefore, the connection runs external to the MCU. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass The TANDBERG MCU supports mixed IP and ISDN multipoint calls; however, it does not provide point-to- point gateway capabilities. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass The TANDBERG MPS supports mixed IP and ISDN multipoint calls; however, it does not provide point-to- point gateway capabilities. Test case 56 - Simultaneous Conferences In this test case, we determined that the MCU has no inherent limit to the number of simultaneous conferences in relation to the ports available. To test for this feature, we identified the maximum number of ports possible, assuming three participants or ports per conference. This test primarily focuses on the ability to fully utilize all MCU ports. We then determined whether the MCU could reach the maximum number of potential conferences based on the number of ports. For example, an MCU with 12 ports should be able to maintain 4 conferences assuming each conference contains 3 ports. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed For this test, we defined a conference as a 384 kbps, voice-switched, 3-participant conference. The Polycom MCU tested had 24 ports and therefore should be able to support eight concurrent conferences. We created eight conferences successfully. When we created the ninth conference, we got a message that said “status = STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_IP_RSRC”. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We ran this test using the MCU card, i.e. MP Processor. As stated in the datasheet, the MCU-30 running at 384 kbps can support 24 ports. With 24 ports, The RADVISION MCU should be able to support 8 concurrent conferences. We created eight conferences successfully, but were unable to create a ninth conference. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass At 384 kbps, voice-switched, 3-participant conferences, the MCU supports 16 video ports and 9 audio ports. Based on the number of video ports, we would expect to be able to create 5 conferences. We were unable to create more than three conferences. It appears that the TANDBERG MCU maximum number of conferences is hard-coded to be three conferences. TANDBERG MPS – Did not pass At 384 kbps, voice-switched, 3-participant conferences, the MCU supports 48 video ports. Based on the number of video ports, we would expect to be able to create 16 conferences. We were unable to create more than nine conferences. It appears that the TANDBERG MCU maximum number of conferences is hard-coded to be nine conferences. Test case 57 – Customizable IVR Variations In this test case, we determined that the MCU could host and serve multiple IVR services. To test for this feature, we created multiple conference definitions that each used a different customized IVR service. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three entry queues, each with a unique IVR Message Service. To connect to the conference, we entered the conference prefix “20205,” and then appended the entry queue number, 1, 2, or 3. Therefore, the Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 51
  • three numbers that we dialed on the endpoints were “202051,” “202052,” and “202053.” We successfully entered the same conference using three different dialing strings, each with a unique IVR variation. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass After a thorough search of the RADVISION MCU product and documentation, we found that the RADVISION does not support does not support IVR services. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support does not support IVR services. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support does not support IVR services. Test case 58 - Multi-language Company Greeting Entry Queues In this test case, we determined if participants could dial different entry queues with different greetings and be forwarded into to the same conference. To test for this feature, we connected three endpoints into the same conference by dialing different access numbers followed by the same conference ID. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three entry queues, each with a unique IVR Message Service. To connect to the conference, we entered the conference prefix “20205”, and then appended the entry queue number, 1, 2, or 3. Therefore, the three numbers that we dialed on the endpoints were “202051”, “202052”, and “202053”. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We were unable to perform this test case on the RADVISION MCU because conferences were defined by a conference prefix and then a specific conference ID. For example, a conference prefix could be 80353 and the conference ID is 1. Therefore, a specific conference is given the number 803531. We were unable to connect to a single conference using multiple numbers. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support does not support IVR services. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support does not support IVR services. In summary, the Polycom MGC-100 system passed 24 of 30 test cases, as compared to seven test cases passed by the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU, two test cases by the TANDBERG MCU 16+16, and four test cases by the TANDBERG MPS. Additionally, we found that the Polycom MCU offered by far the greatest capability within its transcoding features. The Polycom MCU was able to transcode virtually an unlimited number of heterogeneous media streams. Overall, the Polycom MCU demonstrated the most versatile set of feature capabilities of the MCU products in our review. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 52
  • Operation and Control Testing The Operations and Control test cases focus on determining the product’s ability to provide a maximum level of operation through the set of features provided by each MCU under test. Within this testing, we tested features related to system management and user control. Test case 59 - Administration Login Identification In this test case, we determined whether all logins to the MCU were identifiable. To test for this feature, we used the administration console to identify the current administration connections to the MCU by name and profile. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Within the Polycom Administration console, by selecting the Connections drilldown icon on the left, we could determine that we were the only connection logged into the MGC manager. We could also determine that we were a superuser, when we connected, from what location, and using which protocol. Confirmation of the ability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Within the RADVISION MCU administration console, we were unable to determine which users are logged in the console. The system allows the first administrator to enter into the console and is granted full permissions. All others who then connect to the console are granted read-only privileges. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Within the TANDBERG MCU administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Within the TANDBERG MCU administration console, we found that it does not display the number of current connections, the connection identification, and the connection profile. Confirmation of the inability to determine the administration login identification proved that this test did not pass. Test case 60 - Multiple Administration Profiles In this test case, we determined if the MCU illustrated an administration hierarchy. This hierarchy is a set of profiles that administrators can assign, or be assigned to, to enable or restrict access capabilities according to their needs. Assigning administrators with different profiles and rights provides greater security to the overall system. Using the administration console, we determined the number of levels of permissions that the administration console allowed us to create. Polycom MGC-100 After reviewing the Polycom MCU documentation, we found that the MGC Manager administration console supported three levels of operators. They were: 1. Attendant 2. Ordinary 3. Superuser The attendant operator can only define and manage new conferences, gateway sessions, meeting rooms, and participants. The attendant operator does not have access to the MCU Configuration icon and MCU Utilities. Ordinary operators can perform all the tasks an attendant operator does. In addition, ordinary operators can also view the configurations of the modules in the MGC-100. Superuser operators can perform all tasks attendant and ordinary operators do. In addition, superuser operators can define and delete other operators, and define network services. While ordinary operators can view the configurations of the modules in the MGC-100, only the superuser operator can modify the configuration of a module. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 53
  • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the RADVISION system allowed two levels of access privileges. They were: 1. Chair controller 2. User Additionally, the system offers two levels of console management. They were: 1. Operator 2. Administrator TANDBERG MCU 16+16 After reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation, we found that the TANDBERG 16+16 MCU could not assign different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level. TANDBERG MPS After reviewing the RADVISION MPS documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MPS could not assign different levels of privileges to call participants. We found only one level of administration level. Test case 61 - Multi-language Company Greeting Entry Queue In this test case, we determined whether participants could dial different entry queues with customized greetings and be forwarded into to the same conference. To test for this feature, we connected two systems using two different numbers, each receiving two different greeting. We entered the same conference ID to enter the same conference. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three entry queues, each with a unique IVR Message Service. To connect to the conference, we entered the conference prefix “20205”, and then appended the entry queue number, 1, 2, or 3. Therefore, the three numbers that we dialed on the endpoints were “202051”, “202052”, and “202053”. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We found that the RADVISION MCU defines a conference by a conference prefix number, followed by a specific conference ID number. For example, a conference prefix could be “80353” and a conference ID could be 1. Thus, a specific conference could be given the number “803531”, and therefore an endpoint must dial this number to enter this conference. Confirmation of the inability of this MCU to require different numbers to reach this conference proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MCU connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MCU connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 62 - Single Management Interface In this test case, we determined whether all system management, configuration, scheduling, and gateway monitoring could be performed from the administration console. To test for this feature, we used the same window to view the individual status of multiple MCUs, gateway sessions, ongoing conferences and the connection status of participants in ongoing conferences simultaneously. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 54
  • We determined the capability of the administration console by observing the presentation of information in the Polycom administration console and by reviewing the Polycom MCU documentation. Based on our review of these sources, we determined that the Polycom MCU clearly demonstrated that it could manage multiple MCUs, gateway sessions, ongoing conferences and the connection status of participants in ongoing conferences all within a single administration console window. This unified management design allowed us to monitor and manage all aspects of the MCU and ongoing conferences in a very simple and straightforward manner. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We determined the capability of the administration console by observing the presentation of information in the RADVISION administration console and by reviewing the RADVISION MCU documentation. Based on our review of these sources, we determined that each card with a specific IP address on the RADVISION MCU required separate console windows to manage multiple MCUs. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Based on our observation of the TANDBERG MCU and review of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU administration console did not support multiple MCUs and gateway sessions. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Based on our observation of the TANDBERG MCU and review of the TANDBERG MCU documentation, we found that the TANDBERG MCU administration console did not support multiple MCUs and gateway sessions. Test case 63 - Conference Filtering - Faulty connections In this test case, we determined whether a conference could be monitored and filtered to proactively display participants who have faulty connections. To test for this feature, we created a conference and monitored for participants with faulty connections. We connected into a conference and connected an endpoint that was simulating a faulty connection. The participant should briefly appear in the monitoring window. To simulate the faulty connection, we used the Shunra Cloud to conduct a 1% packet loss scenario into the connection between the endpoint and the MCU. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We configured the MCU such that the Shunra Cloud software generated a 1% packet loss between the endpoint and the MCU. We saw both a mild degradation in the signal between the endpoint and the MCU, as well as an alert within the administration console that signaled a faulty connection was being transmitted. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We configured the View settings to use the MP processor, i.e. the MCU card, for this test. Using the Shunra Cloud software, we designed the test to generate a 1% packet loss between the endpoint and the MCU card; however, we saw no degradation in the data stream. We increased the packet loss to 50% and continued to see no packet loss at the MCU card, so we were concerned that we had configured the test incorrectly. We changed the IP address in the Shunra Cloud to be the video card instead of the MCU card and we immediately began to see degradation in the data stream. To test the packet loss on the MCU card, we had to physically remove the video card and retest. In both test cases, the endpoint receiving packet loss but did not show any problems in the management console. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass We found no alert to be raised due to a faulty connection. However, by drilling down into a specific endpoint properties, we were able to see the media info properties. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass We found no alert to be raised due to a faulty connection. However, by drilling down into a specific endpoint properties, we were able to see the media info properties. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 55
  • Test case 64 - Conference Filtering - Operator Assistance In this test case, we determined whether a conference could be monitored and filtered to proactively display participants who have requested assistance. To test for this feature, we created a conference and monitored for participants requesting assistance. We connected a system into a conference and requested assistance. We monitored for the participant appearing in the administration console. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a conference that employed an IVR Message. We connected to the conference and dialed *0” to get operator assistance. The participant did not go on hold, but was flagged as "Waiting for Assistance" in the administration console. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass Using the RADVISION MCU, we created an operator via the administration console. However, we were unable to create an endpoint that requested assistance. When we used the administration console to create an operator participant, we were unable to determine which participant was requesting assistance. We were unable to use DTMF codes to request operator assistance from the endpoint. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support requesting assistance. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support requesting assistance. Test case 65 - Conference Filtering - Noisy Line In this test case, we determined whether a conference could be monitored and filtered to proactively display participants who have noisy connections. To test for this feature, we created a conference and monitored for participants with noisy connections. We connected a system into a conference and simulated a noisy line by using the continuous monotone sound emitted from an air vent. We monitored for the participant to appear in the administration console and display the noisy line icon. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed To emulate a consistent noisy connection, we held the microphone of the endpoint to an air vent that produced a low-level noisy line hum. When we dialed into the Polycom MCU and connected this noisy endpoint to the conference, the MCU detected the noisy line and displayed it as such in the administration console. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass To emulate a consistent noisy connection, we held the microphone of the endpoint to an air vent that produced a low-level noisy line hum. When we dialed into the RADVISION MCU and connected this noisy endpoint to the conference, the MCU did not detect this endpoint as having transmission problems and therefore did not display it as such in the administration console. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass To emulate a consistent noisy connection, we held the microphone of the endpoint to an air vent that produced a low-level noisy line hum. When we dialed into the TANDBERG MCU and connected this noisy endpoint to the conference, the MCU did not detect this endpoint as having transmission problems and therefore did not display it as such in the administration console. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass To emulate a consistent noisy connection, we held the microphone of the endpoint to an air vent that produced a low-level noisy line hum. When we dialed into the TANDBERG MPS and connected this noisy endpoint to the conference, the MCU did not detect this endpoint as having transmission problems and therefore did not display it as such in the administration console. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 56
  • Test case 66 - Automatic Mute on Music Detection In this test case, we determined whether an audio conference could detect a noisy line and automatically mute the audio from being broadcasted to the conference. To test for this feature, we created an audio conference and simulated a noisy line by placing the call on hold to play music. The MCU should detect the hold music and mute the audio from the main conference. Additionally, the MCU should prompt the endpoint to remedy the situation. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first connected a radio to one of the audio cards on the MCU. We created a standard conference with IVR, and we enabled the “SilenceIT” checkbox. We connected to the conference using two endpoints. We then put one of the endpoints on hold. The one endpoint on hold began to play hold music, but was quickly silenced by the SilenceIT technology on the Polycom MCU. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We first connected a radio to one of the audio cards on the MCU. We created a standard conference and connected to the conference using two endpoints. We put an endpoint on hold that generated hold music. The RADVISION MCU did not appear to detect the hold music and therefore did not mute the endpoint that was generating the hold music. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support suppressing hold music into the conference call when detected. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support suppressing hold music into the conference call when detected. Test case 67 - View Individual Capabilities In this test case, we determined whether capabilities declared by the MCU, the endpoint, and the negotiated capabilities for each participant can be viewed using the administration console. To test for this feature, we used the administration console to identify three sets of capability exchanges, MCU, endpoint, and negotiated parameters. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed Using the participant properties window, we selected the H245 tab. This presented us with a dialog with three windows that display the capability exchange. This displayed the information that was being declared by each endpoint and what was being negotiated. The three window sets are 1.) all of the endpoint’s capabilities, 2.) the capabilities the endpoint provides to the MCU, 3.) the capabilities the MCU negotiates with the endpoint. See Figure 32 for a screenshot of this window in the Polycom MCU administration console. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 57
  • Figure 32. Polycom MCU Individual Capabilities screenshot RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We were able to view the sets of capabilities from the RADVISION MCU; however, this information is the endpoint negotiated rates and protocols. This MCU did not present the capability and declaration statements. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed We were able to view two sets of capabilities from the TANDBERG MCU. We are able to view the input and output capabilities from a given endpoint; however, we were unable to view the full set of capabilities of the endpoint. See Figures 33 and 34 for screenshots of the window in the TANDBERG MCU administration console. TANDBERG MPS - Passed We were able to view the sets of capabilities from the TANDBERG MPS. See Figures 33 and 34 for screenshots of the window in the TANDBERG MCU administration console. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 58
  • Figure 33. TANDBERG MCU and MPS Individual Capabilities screenshot (Screen 1) Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 59
  • Figure 34. TANDBERG MCU and MPS Individual Capabilities screenshot (Screen 2) Test case 68 - Ad-hoc Dialing In this test case, we determined whether multiple ad-hoc conferences could be created and started by the user without the need for scheduling. With no conferences running on the MCU, we used the endpoint remote control to dial a given number and to supply the numeric conference ID. Using the administration console, we confirmed the conference was running with the numeric ID as its name. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an ad-hoc profile. We then referenced the ad-hoc profile in an entry queue definition. We then dialed into the MCU from an endpoint, using the MCU number plus the entry queue number, such as “202051” for entry queue 1. The MCU then prompted us for a password. For whatever number we entered, a conference with that number was created and added to the administration console. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 60
  • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We first enabled "Allow conference creation using Scheduler, Web, Control API, and dial-in.” We then created a conference definition with a specific number, “80353”. We used the endpoint to dial in and a conference with that conference definition ID was created. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support conference creation prior to conference start; therefore, there is no ad-hoc conference to dial into. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that the TANDBERG does not support conference creation prior to conference start; therefore, there is no ad-hoc conference to dial into. Test case 69 - Single Number per Conference In this test case, we determined whether participants could dial a single DID number to reach the same destination conference. To test for this feature, we connected three systems into the same conference by dialing the same number on each system. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created a new conference and selected the Meet me Per Conference checkbox. We then selected the Meet Me per conference property and recorded the dial in number for this conference. We connected into a single conference by dialing three endpoints and joined the same conference. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Passed We created and connected into a single conference by dialing 80353 on three endpoints. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Passed The TANDBERG MCU administration console was configured such that each specific conference had a dedicated number; therefore, an endpoint could dial this number and enter the conference successfully. See Figure 35 for an illustration on how the TANDBERG administration console interface required specific conference dial in numbers. Figure 35. TANDBERG MCU Dial in Number Assignment TANDBERG MPS – Passed The TANDBERG MPS administration console was configured such that each specific conference had a dedicated number; therefore, an endpoint could dial this number and enter the conference successfully. See Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 61
  • Figure 36 for an illustration on how the TANDBERG administration console interface required specific conference dial in numbers. Figure 36. TANDBERG MPS Dial in Number Assignment Test case 70 - Single Number for All Conferences In this test case, we determined whether a participant could be routed to a conference by using a dedicated dial in number assigned to each participant. To test for this feature, we connected three systems into the same conference by dialing a different number on each system. Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We created three entry queues, each with a unique IVR Message Service. To connect to the conference, we entered the conference prefix “20205”, and then appended the entry queue number, 1, 2, or 3. Therefore, the three numbers that we dialed on the endpoints were “202051”, “202052”, and “202053”. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We found that the RADVISION MCU defines a conference by a conference prefix number, followed by a specific conference ID number. For example, a conference prefix could be “80353” and a conference ID could be 1. Thus, a specific conference could be given the number “803531”, and therefore an endpoint must dial this number to enter this conference. Confirmation of the inability of this MCU to require different numbers to reach this conference proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MCU product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MCU connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass After a thorough search of the TANDBERG MPS product and documentation, we found that using multiple endpoint numbers on the TANDBERG MCU connects to different conferences. Based on this lack of feature capability, we proved that this test did not pass. Test case 71 - Personalized Conference In this test case, we determined whether predefined reservationless conference definitions specific to individual users could exist for personal conferencing applications. To test for this feature, we dialed into a predefined ad-hoc conference without reservation using personalized PIN codes and privilege profiles. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 62
  • Polycom MGC-100 - Passed We first created an entry queue with default settings. We created a new conference with “Entry Queue Access” enabled. We created an IVR conference with different passwords for the chairperson and participants. We then dialed into the call without prior scheduling and connected successfully. The confirmation of this ability proved that this test passed. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Did not pass We first created the conference definition. We then dialed into the conference and defined the password in real time upon conference creation. All following connected participants into that conference must use that password. Additionally, all participants have the same access level. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 - Did not pass Using administration console, we were required to manually create an active conference beforehand; therefore, this was not considered an ad-hoc conference. TANDBERG MPS - Did not pass Using administration console, we were required to manually create an active conference beforehand; therefore, this was not considered an ad-hoc conference. In summary, the Polycom MGC-100 system passed all 12 test cases, as compared to 2 passed by the RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU and 2 by both the TANDBERG MCU 16+16 and TANDBERG MPS. Additionally, as shown in test case 60, the Polycom MCU demonstrated three levels of administration hierarchy, compared to two levels for the RADVISION MCU and one level for the TANDBERG MCU. Overall, the Polycom MCU demonstrated the most complete set of administration operation and control feature capabilities of the MCU products in our review. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 63
  • Use Case Scenarios We used results from the above feature set capability within several use case scenarios to determine the effectiveness of using each product in a real-world environment. For example, if product A was able to create a conference that could call out to specific numbers successfully and product B could not, then the “call out” use case scenario could not be successfully completed by product B. For each of the following real-world use case scenarios, we used results from the test cases to determine the ability of each MCU to complete all of the tasks within the use case scenario. Use case scenario 1 – Secure, password protection Description: Company XYZ hosts multiple conferences on the behalf of clients and billed according to usage. As such, they need to provide secure conferencing with strong password and conference protection. Every client is provided with a unique, randomly generated password for chair and participant access. It is critical that all passwords comply with their in-house password policy. Test # Test Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG TANDBERG MPS 100 400 16+16 1 Conference Password Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass Call-in and Call-out 2 Password Hierarchy Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 4 Automatic Password Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Generation 5 Password Integrity Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Validation 6 Conference Password Passed Passed Did not pass Did not pass String Validation 23 Decreasing Password Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Attempts Figure 37. Use case scenario 1 test cases Use case scenario 2 – Secure, participant identification and privileges Description: Company XYZ has implemented on-demand conferencing throughout their company. Each functional work group has their own entry queue, conference identifier, and set of passwords for security. To conserve resources, the director of IT only wants the conference to start once the chairperson is participating. In addition, to minimize the amount of time spent on conference management, the director wants the ability for the chairperson to control his or her own conference, identifying who is present, the duration, and the screen layouts. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 64
  • Test # Test Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG TANDBERG MPS 100 400 16+16 2 Password Hierarchy Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 12 Automatic Conference Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Termination – after chairperson leader profile exits 14 Conference Requires Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Chairperson or leader To Start 40 Chairperson Layout Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Change 45 Different Number Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Conference ID Routing Figure 38. Use case scenario 2 test cases Use case scenario 3 – Service Provider – Managed Services Description: Service Provider XYZ business model is to host multiple conferences for their enterprise-based clients. As such, they provide premium high touch services as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition. One area they wish to excel at is for their clients to have a high quality experience with the expectation to connect right away, request help when needed and the audio quality to be superb. This service provider has set up each of their clients with their own call in number with multiple conference ID’s for each number, customized IVR, operator services and a Service Level Agreement. Since they host thousands of hours of conferencing per month, scalability is required and multiple operators to monitor on going conferences. Test # Test Name Polycom MGC- RADVISION viaIP TANDBERG TANDBERG MPS 100 400 16+16 21 Request Private Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Operator Assistance 29 Transcoding 12 of 12 3 of 12 2 of 12 2 of 12 Bandwidths 30 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 Protocols 31 Transcoding Video 3 of 3 1 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3 Formats 32 Transcoding Audio 6 of 6 6 of 6 4 of 6 4 of 6 Algorithms 33 Transcoding All 62 of 62 3 of 62 2 of 62 2 of 62 47 Operator Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass 57 IVR Variations Passed Did not pass Did not pass Did not pass Figure 39. Use case scenario 3 test cases Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 65
  • Testing Methodology Polycom commissioned VeriTest to conduct a comparative analysis of four MCU products. We performed a series of tests on each of the four products that was consistent with the typical product usage. We evaluated the following four systems: • Polycom MGC-100 • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU • TANDBERG MCU 16+16 • TANDBERG MPS The Polycom MGC-100, as shown in Figure 40, is a high-performance, highly scalable MCU and gateway platform. This system, designed to accommodate users’ changing multipoint needs, features a modular “universal slot” platform that allows a high degree of customization based on port capacity, product, and feature requirements. Figure 40. Polycom MGC-100 (on the left) The RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU, as shown in Figure 41, is a multi-service platform integrating the multipoint conferencing, gateway and data collaboration functionality and any other additional functions you require in a single platform Figure 41. RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 66
  • The TANDBERG MCU 16+16, as shown in Figure 42, supports mixed ISDN and IP video calls, and optimizes network resources. Figure 42. TANDBERG MCU 16+16 The TANDBERG MPS, as shown in Figure 43, represents TANDBERG’s latest MCU product. Figure 43. TANDBERG MPS Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 67
  • Testing Locations We conducted all testing related to this study from the VeriTest Research Triangle Park, North Carolina facility and in the Polycom Tel Aviv, Israel facility. To maximize the efficiency of our test schedule, we conducted testing in the two locations. We performed testing from the RTP lab for all testing that we were able to complete remotely. This included testing features, such as connecting into conference calls managing the system administrator functions. For our testing, we used the following versions of each MCU product: • Polycom MGC-100 - v7.0.0.62 • RADVISION viaIP 400 MCU - Software -3.5.24, Hardware-55588-00008(B05) • TANDBERG 16+16 MCU - D3.3 • TANDBERG MPS - Software J1.2 Figure 44. Product testbed network diagram Polycom and VeriTest worked together to create a test methodology to measure the capability of each product in this study. This methodology covered a wide spectrum of real-user product capabilities. The test methodology that we used measured the capability of each product across the following feature set: 1. Security and Authentication a. Conference Security b. System Security 2. Versatility a. Transcoding b. Data and Content Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 68
  • c. Continuous Presence d. Conference Routing e. Conference Types f. Resource Management g. Customization 3. Operation and Control a. System Management b. User Control We used the following use case scenarios to measure the real-world environment capabilities of each product in this study. Test Cases We conducted 71 test cases on each of the products in this study. Descriptions of these tests can be found in Appendix A. A complete set of details and the results of these test cases on each MCU can be found in the Test Results section. Use Case Scenarios We used results from the above feature set capability within several use case scenarios to determine the effectiveness of using each product in a real-world environment. For example, if product A was able to create a conference that could call out to specific numbers successfully and product B could not, then the “call out” use case scenario could not be successfully completed by product B. For each of the following real-world use case scenarios, we used results from the test cases to determine the ability of each MCU to complete all of the tasks within the use case scenario. Use case scenario 1 – Secure, password protection Description: Company XYZ hosts multiple conferences on the behalf of clients and billed according to usage. As such, they need to provide secure conferencing with strong password and conference protection. Every client is provided with a unique, randomly generated password for chair and participant access. It is critical that all passwords comply with their in-house password policy. Use case scenario 2 – Secure, participant identification, and privileges Description: Company XYZ has implemented on-demand conferencing throughout their company. Each functional work group has their own entry queue, conference identifier, and set of passwords for security. To conserve resources, the director of IT only wants the conference to start once the chairperson is participating. In addition, to minimize the amount of time spent on conference management, the director wants the ability for the chairperson to control his or her own conference, identifying who is present, the duration, and the screen layouts. Use case scenario 3 – Service Provider – Managed Services Description: Service Provider XYZ business model is to host multiple conferences for their enterprise-based clients. As such, they provide premium high touch services as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition. One area they wish to excel at is for their clients to have a high quality experience with the expectation to connect right away, request help when needed and the audio quality to be superb. This service provider has set up each of their clients with their own call in number with multiple conference ID’s for each number, customized IVR, operator services and a Service Level Agreement. Since they host thousands of hours of conferencing per month, scalability is required and multiple operators to monitor on going conferences. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 69
  • Appendix A. Test Cases Test # Name Description 1 Conference Password This test verifies that a conference password is required to join a conference. Call-in and Call-out 2 Password Hierarchy This test verifies that multiple password profiles is used to enter a single conference. 3 Privilege Profiles This test verifies that the MCU can host and serve predefined privilege profiles. 4 Automatic Password This test verifies that the MCU can assign conferences with randomly Generation generated passwords. 5 Password Integrity This test verifies that when password credentials are not automatically Validation generated by the MCU, all passwords will be checked for compliance before being approved. 6 Conference Password This test verifies that all conference passwords entered are validated as a String Validation complete string. 7 Change Conference This test verifies that the password assigned to a conference can be changed Password During A during an on going conference. Conference 8 Conference Lock This test verifies that an on going conference can be locked to deny access to any further connections. 9 Conference Hide This test verifies that an on going conference can be secured so that it cannot be monitored by any application or interface. 10 Automatic Conference This test verifies that a conference is terminated if no connections are made Termination – no show within a set number of minutes from the start of the conference. 11 Automatic Conference This test verifies that a conference is terminated if no further connections are Termination – after made after the last person leaves. last person 12 Automatic Conference This test verifies that a conference is terminated when the chairperson or Termination – after leader leaves the conference. chairperson leader profile exits 13 Conference This test verifies that a participant can instantaneously terminate an ongoing Termination – During conference. A Conference 14 Conference Requires This test verifies that a conference can start only when the chairperson or Chairperson or leader leader is present. To Start 15 Participant This test verifies that each connection to a conference will be prompted to Identification – record their name which will be used to announce their entry in to the Entering a conference conference. 16 Participant This test verifies that when a connection to a conference is terminated, the Identification – name recorded prior to entry will announce its departure. Leaving a conference 17 Automatic Participant This test verifies that each participant can be identified by name when Identification By Name entering a conference. 18 Roll Call This test verifies that all the names recorded prior to entering a conference can be replayed to identify everyone in the conference. 19 Automatic Dial Out This test verifies that a conference will automatically connect predefined participants when initiated. 20 Operator Assisted This test verifies that conference participants can be routed to their Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 70
  • Routing conference by a video operator in person. 21 Request Private This test verifies that during a conference a participant can request private Operator Assistance assistance. 22 Secure Breakout or This test verifies that during an on going conference any number of Sidebar Session participants can be securely moved from their conference to another conference and re-join without disconnection. 23 Decreasing Password This test verifies that within a defined number of failed password attempts to Attempts enter a conference, the connection will automatically be terminated. 24 Failed Conference This test verifies that when an incorrect password is entered the participant Access will be securely placed on hold and identified to the operator. 25 Secure Non Password This test verifies that remote systems dialed from the MCU will acknowledge Conference the connection by pressing any key before proceeding. 26 Administration This test verifies that a pre-defined administration hierarchy exists to which Hierarchy participants can be assigned according to their access needs. 27 Administration Login This test verifies that all logins to the MCU are identifiable. Identification 28 Conference This test verifies that a conference can be specified to terminate after a set Countdown To number of activations. Termination Figure A1. Security and Authentication Test Cases Test # Name Description 29 Transcoding This test verifies that all supported bandwidths up to 2MB can coexist in the Bandwidths same conference without prior configuration. 30 Transcoding Video This test verifies that that all supported video protocols can coexist in the Protocols same conference without prior configuration. 31 Transcoding Video This test verifies that that all supported video formats can coexist in the same Formats conference without prior configuration. 32 Transcoding Audio This test verifies that that all supported audio algorithms can coexist in the Algorithms same conference without prior-configuration. 33 Transcoding All This test verifies that that all supported bandwidths, video protocols, video formats, audio algorithms can coexist in the same conference without prior configuration. 34 Mixed Protocol This test verifies that connections from H.323, H.320, and SIP devices can Conference coexist in the same conference. Application Layer 35 Mixed Conference This test verifies that connections from PRI, V.35, and Ethernet can coexist in Presentation Layer the same. Figure A2. Versatility - Transcoding Test Cases Test # Name Description 36 T.120 Support This test verifies that the system provides T.120 support. Datasheet comparison 37 Standard H.239 This test verifies that the system provides H.239 support. Support Datasheet comparison Figure A3. Versatility – Data and Content Test Cases Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 71
  • Test # Name Description 38 Configurable This test verifies the customization ability to select which layout will used Automatic Layout when using automatic layout selection. Selection 39 Private Layout This test verifies that each participant can choose and receive their personal CP layout. 40 Chairperson Layout This test verifies that the conference CP layout can be manually changed Change during a conference to alternative CP layouts without operator or web access. 41 Virtual Classroom This test verifies that a classroomlecture conference can show the tutor full screen to the students and the students in CP layout to the tutor. 42 Broadcast Mode This test verifies that connections to the MCU can have their audio and video automatically muted only receiving audio and video from the MCU. 43 CNN CP View This test verifies that the MCU can switch between presenting the current speaker full screen and the chosen CP layout for the conference. Figure A4. Versatility – Continuous Presence Test Cases Test # Name Description 44 Conference DID This test verifies that a participant can be routed to a conference by using a Number Routing dedicated DID number per conference. 45 This test verifies that a participant can be routed to a conference by dialing Different Number different numbers, such as entry queues, and then be routed using the same Conference ID Routing conference ID. 46 Participant Number This test verifies that a participant can be routed to a conference by using a Routing dedicated dial-in number assigned to each participant. Figure A5. Versatility – Continuous Presence Test Cases Test # Name Description 47 Operator This test verifies that operator conferences can exist to respond to requests for assistance from on going conferences. 48 Scheduled This test verifies that conferences can be scheduled to the MCU. 49 Ad-hoc Dialing This test verifies that multiple ad-hoc conferences can be created and started without the need for scheduling. 50 Ad-hoc Predefined This test verifies that pre-defined unscheduled conference definitions can exist for Dialing personal conferencing applications. Figure A6. Versatility – Conference Types Test Cases Test # Name Description 51 Music On Hold This test verifies that an audio conference can detect a noisy line and Detection automatically mute that audio from being broadcasted to the conference. 52 Resource This test verifies that inactive components or DSPs can be isolated and Management removed from service without affecting other on going conferences. 53 Resource Reset This test verifies that inactive components or DSPs can be isolated and reset without affecting other on going conferences. 54 Multi System View This test verifies that all system management, configuration, and scheduling can be performed from the default system management application. 55 Integrated Gateway This test verifies that all point-to-point and multipoint gateway sessions can take place on the system at the same time without the use of external gateway devices. 56 Simultaneous This test verifies that the system has no inherent limit to the number of Conferences simultaneous conferences in relation to the ports available. Figure A7. Versatility – Resource Management Test Cases Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 72
  • Test # Name Description 57 IVR Variations This test verifies that the MCU can host and serve multiple IVR services. 58 Multi-language This test verifies that participants can dial different entry queues with different Company Greeting greetings and be forwarded into to the same conference. Entry Queue Figure A8. Versatility – Customization Test Cases Test # Name Description 59 Administration Login This test verifies that all logins to the MCU are identifiable. Identification 60 Multiple Admin Profiles This test verifies that a pre-defined administration Hierarchy exists to which people can be assigned according to their access needs. 61 Multi-language This test verifies that participants can dial different entry queues with different Company Greeting greetings and be forwarded into to the same conference Entry Queue 62 This test verifies that all system management, configuration, scheduling and Single Management gateway monitoring can be performed from the default system management Interface application 63 Conference Filtering – This test verifies that a conference can be monitored and filtered to Faulty Connection proactively display participants who have faulty connections 64 Conference Filtering – This test verifies that a conference can be monitored and filtered to Participants proactively display participants who have requested assistance Requesting Assistance 65 Conference Filtering – This test verifies that an audio conference can detect a noisy line and Noisy Line automatically mute their audio from being broadcasted to the conference 66 Automatic Mute On This test verifies that capabilities declared by the MCU, the EP and the Music Detection negotiated capabilities for each participant can be viewed using the default management application 67 View Individual This test verifies that the resources used by each participant in a conference Capabilities can be viewed Figure A9. Operation and Control – Customization Test Cases Test # Name Description 68 Ad-hoc Dialing This test verifies that multiple ad-hoc conferences can be created and started by the user without the need for scheduling. 69 Single Number per This test verifies that participants can dial a single DID number to reach the Conference same destination conference. 70 Single Number For All This test verifies that a participant can be routed to a conference by using a Conferences dedicated dial-in number assigned to each participant. 71 Personalized This test verifies that predefined reservation less conference definitions Conference specific to individual users can exist for personal conferencing applications. Figure A10. Operation and Control – User Control Test Cases Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 73
  • VeriTest (www.veritest.com), the testing division of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., provides outsourced testing solutions that maximize revenue and reduce costs for our clients. For companies who use high-tech products as well as those who produce them, smoothly functioning technology is essential to business success. VeriTest helps our clients identify and correct technology problems in their products and in their line of business applications by providing the widest range of testing services available. VeriTest created the suite of industry-standard benchmark software that includes WebBench, NetBench, Winstone, and WinBench. We've distributed over 20 million copies of these tools, which are in use at every one of the 2001 Fortune 100 companies. Our Internet BenchMark service provides the definitive ratings for Internet Service Providers in the US, Canada, and the UK. Under our former names of ZD Labs and eTesting Labs, and as part of VeriTest since July of 2002, we have delivered rigorous, objective, independent testing and analysis for over a decade. With the most knowledgeable staff in the business, testing facilities around the world, and almost 1,600 dedicated network PCs, VeriTest offers our clients the expertise and equipment necessary to meet all their testing needs. For more information email us at info@veritest.com or call us at 919-380-2800. Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitation of Liability: VERITEST HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF ITS TESTING, HOWEVER, VERITEST SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, RELATING TO THE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS, THEIR ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES RELYING ON THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTING DO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK, AND AGREE THAT VERITEST, ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FROM ANY CLAIM OF LOSS OR DAMAGE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ALLEGED ERROR OR DEFECT IN ANY TESTING PROCEDURE OR RESULT. IN NO EVENT SHALL VERITEST BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH ITS TESTING, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL VERITEST'S LIABILITY, INCLUDING FOR DIRECT DAMAGES, EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH VERITEST'S TESTING. CUSTOMER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES ARE AS SET FORTH HEREIN. Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study 74