Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study

1,108 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,108
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Multipoint Conferencing Unit Comparative Study

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. • 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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

×