[cisco-voip] Call Center Software

[Ortiz, Carlos]

The avg ping time to these 2 locations is about 4 ms so the good news is
the circuit doesn't blow!  ;)   

 

The requirement for a local server is more political than anything, but
both agencies want to be functional even in the case of a ring failure.
The only problem we have had with the ring in 2.5 years was once after a
carrier upgrade.  

 

I thought that you were only allowed 1 IPCC Express instance per
cluster.  Would installing other instances work but be going against
best practices?  If I can install multiple instances then that would
solve my problem.

 

 

Carlos

 

________________________________

From: Jonathan Charles [mailto:jonvoip at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:00 AM
To: sam at munzani.com
Cc: Ortiz, Carlos; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Call Center Software

 

What is the latency across the circuit? PING times between hosts on
opposite ends? 

If it is less than 5ms, you are good, if it is over 40ms, you are
screwed (and your circuit blows).

Now, we are fighting the following statement in the SRND, "When
deploying High Availability (HA), the CRS Engine and Database components
must both be redundant and collocated in the same building." (UCCX
4.0(4) SRND, page 3-3).

Have you considered non-HA? I am just wondering if the requirement for a
local IPCC server was for HA or due to a need to be locally
administered.





Jonathan

On 12/11/06, Sam Munzani <sam at munzani.com> wrote:

Acrually OC-48 offers you 2.4Gbps bandwidth only. So from what angle it
would be more than LAN is debatable topic :-).. I know OC-48 is a big
deal for the WAN but it still doesn't come close to a slow LAN.

Thanks,
sam



If you have an OC-48, you have more WAN bandwidth than would be
generally available on a LAN.

I would put in the failover server as a test, and see if it works,
because, at the end of the day, it is just IP communication. 

Since I believe there is a heartbeat requirement for UCCX 4.0, you can
tunnel a subnet between sites to fool the server into thinking it is
hooked up via a crossover.

Hey, it's worth a shot.

Alternatively, you could install two UCCX servers, without failover and
make them entirely autonomous (IOW, they have nothing to do with each
other, save for the fact that they are both connected to the same
CallManager cluster). 

You would create two distinct sets of CTI ports and CTI Route Points and
have different applications on each...

(or you could manually replicate and create a hunt group to the CTI
Route-Points (with circular routing) so that CCM would load balance
between them. 


Jonathan

On 12/11/06, Ortiz, Carlos <CORTIZ at broward.org > wrote: 

We currently use IPCC Express for our Help Desk/ Call center.  The
location where the server resides is connected via an OC48 ring to 2
other locations that require call center functionality.  Ideally we
could run all the queues out of our IPCC Express setup but their may be
a business requirement for the call centers to be LOCALLY installed.   I
have been told that IPCC Express does not support failover via the WAN.
IPCC Enterprise does but is an expensive proposition.  Are there any
alternatives software call center packages that can accommodate this
requirement at a reasonable price?

 

Carlos


_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip










________________________________



 
_______________________________________________

cisco-voip mailing list

cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20061211/ada57df2/attachment.html