[cisco-voip] Call Center Software

[Jonathan Charles]

I installed an IPCC 3.5 box and an IPCC 4.0(4) box right here, and both were
active at the same time.

During the migration from 3.5 to 4.0, we moved from a 7825 to a 7835. While
the agents were taking calls to the 3.5 box, I installed and tested
the 4.0box, and reinstalled the CAD on the live users over a weekend
and had them
log in to the 4.0 server.

During this time, we had a different application still running on the
3.5server until a few weeks ago (I migrated the app to
4.0 at that time).

Different 800 numbers pointing to different translation patterns, to
different CTI Route-Points and CTI port groups.

No problem.



Jonathan

On 12/11/06, Ortiz, Carlos <CORTIZ at broward.org> wrote:
>
>  Not to beat a dead horse but have you actually installed multiple IPCC
> Express instances against a single cluster with no ill effects.  If this can
> be done then I think I would look at what you described below….  A
> subscriber locally with an instance of IPCC.
>
>
>
> CArlos
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Jonathan Charles [mailto:jonvoip at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2006 3:22 PM
> *To:* Ed Leatherman
> *Cc:* Ortiz, Carlos; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Call Center Software
>
>
>
> Why not use CME at the remote site, that way you can use a hunt group....
> Actually, just connect the CME to the CCM cluster (or put in a new
> subscriber), and put in a PRI at the remote location (if that's where the
> agents are) and move the IPCC server over there (since that is where the
> agents are...) and use this as a remote site (since that is where the (wait
> for it) agents are).
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 12/11/06, *Ed Leatherman* <ealeatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Carlos,
>
> I'm working on a similar problem with a call center. The particular call
> center in question is relatively small, only 8-9 agents at peak times. They
> will be connected back to campus with dual gig-e connections, but are
> concerned about keeping the call center up taking calls in the event of a
> fiber cut or some similar service outage.
>
> What we are currently trying to design is a way to use SRST to pick up the
> phones in the event that they lose connectivity back to campus, and then
> forwarding calls from the IPCC server to a bank of analog lines over the
> PSTN into the SRST router, and then ring out onto the phones as a shared
> line. This way they just need a small router on site running SRST and some
> analog trunks from the phone company, rather than a couple servers sitting
> around for CCM and IPCCX, as well as a voice gateway for their incoming
> calls.
>
> Not sure if thats an option for you or not, figured i'd toss it out.
> Depends on how full-featured you need to be in a net-down situation I guess.
> We're still working on the details ourselves.
>
> Ed
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> Senior Voice Engineer
> West Virginia University
> Telecommunications and Network Operations
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061211/679b7d32/attachment.html