Mitel Application Suite vs Mitel Border Gateway only

[lukeskinner]

Hello and thanks in advance for any advice.

We have a 3300 MCD with 12 handsets at the moment.  We want/need to set up some teleworkers.

If I understand correctly, in order to do this we need a server running MSL and have the option of either MBG only, or the MAS which includes MBG and various other applications which might or might not be useful at some point in the future.  We use the standard voicemail at the moment, and UC Express on those machines where we got a (free) licence when it was still possible to do so.

My question is - will I regret not getting the full MAS suite if we go for MBG as a standalone bit of software?  The one-off costs aren't huge but are significant enough, for us, that I'd rather not waste money.

So, experts - is there enough other value wrapped up in the MAS package that I should just plump for that now, or will I be paying for a load of redundant software.  What could we do with the other software which I haven't thought of?

(I know this is a difficult question to address specifically without loads of detail about what we do, so I guess I'm looking for very general advice.  If it helps, we're a small business with 5-10 employees including a small sales team making outbound calls, and a busy shop/workshop/hire business taking incoming and outgoing calls).

[dilkie]

There's slightly more to it.

If you are deploying this in a DMZ, you need to know MAS cannot operate there and you'll need to setup an inside MAS and a separate edge MBG (in your DMZ). So starting with an MBG makes sense.

If you are planning on using it in server-gateway mode (replacing or astride your firewall), then the combo MAS+MBG makes sense if you really do plan on using those features in the future.. Remember though, TW licenses are transferable, so it would only be the cost of the MBG "base kit" you'd be out if you wanted to upgrade the MBG h/w to MAS+MBG.

standalone MBG also tends to get fixes/security updates faster than MAS (more integration, testing effort to package it all together).

(I'm not a disinterested person, I work on MBG, not MAS, so I'm biased)

[Navarre]

And from a security perspective, you are definitely safer with a standalone MBG on the network edge and a MAS server on the LAN, than putting all of MAS' services on the network edge against all security principles.

[lukeskinner]

Thanks, both.

If you are deploying this in a DMZ, you need to know MAS cannot operate there and you'll need to setup an inside MAS and a separate edge MBG (in your DMZ). So starting with an MBG makes sense.

So two separate physical servers, then?  Starting to sound expensive!

And from a security perspective, you are definitely safer with a standalone MBG on the network edge

Does network edge=DMZ in the context of what you're both saying?

[johnp]

Actually it isn't a big cost difference with the 2 servers, if done in a virtual environment. Like what was mentioned earlier, licenses are shared for teleworker operation.

I agree with the above opinion to go with the MBG as a starting point. You could also add a free MAS with collab client for basic UCA function.

[dilkie]

Thanks, both.

If you are deploying this in a DMZ, you need to know MAS cannot operate there and you'll need to setup an inside MAS and a separate edge MBG (in your DMZ). So starting with an MBG makes sense.

So two separate physical servers, then?  Starting to sound expensive!

And from a security perspective, you are definitely safer with a standalone MBG on the network edge

Does network edge=DMZ in the context of what you're both saying?

network edge means "exposed to internet traffic", a place where security needs to be as strong as possible. So even if you use VM's, as suggested by the above, the network traffic has to be such, even in the VM environment, that interent traffic stays isolated and only internet-safe hosts are exposed to it.