[cisco-voip] Call Center Software

[Jonathan Charles]

The problem you will run into (in the case of a WAN failure) is that inbound
calls are probably mapped to a PRI in ONE location, so calls will still hit
the main site. Now, in the case of a server failure at the main site, you
should still be up.

With 4ms of latency, you could easily drag layer-2 up and bridge it across
the WAN (via DLSw) and replicate a single subnet in more than one location).

You can have as many IPCC Express instances as you want. Just build
different CTI port groups for each and have a different CTI Route Point for
each application (which the specific IPCC server will register to the CCM
cluster).



Jonathan

On 12/11/06, Ortiz, Carlos <CORTIZ at broward.org> wrote:
>
>  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/20061211/51088571/attachment.html