[cisco-voip] IPCCX 3.5(3) to 4.0(4) Upgrade

[Matthew Melbourne]

On 25 Oct, Martin Lohnert <lohnert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I've gone through something very similar, and because of downtime,
> decided to do a new install. We were adding a 2nd IPCC server for HA, so
> I used that one to install a new IPCC 4.0.4, integrate with directory,
> and CCM with a new range of CTI ports. I then set up CTI route points
> for testing the migrated apps.

This is exactly my thinking too. However, I wasn't sure what would happen
to agents; i.e. whether they can be active on the IPCCX 4.0(4) box and the
IPCCX 3.5 box at the same time. Premably they can be, and the IPCC 3.5
server doesn't know any difference? Did you create a new cluster?

We have a cold standby server from the IPCCX 3.5 installation (with a
number of spare disks), so this could be rebuilt as IPCCX 4.0(4) and the
old 3.5 server rebuilt as the IPCCX 4.0(4) standby server.

We have IPCCX Premium. Did you have any issues with licensing, as I
understand, in Premium with version 4, the number of IVR ports is equal to
twice the number of seats, rather than a number of IVR ports.

Does the standby server require its own set of CTI ports, do these get
created and assigned automatically when the standby server is introduced
into the cluster? There seems to be little documentation around this issue.


> All of this just because my biggest concern was script conversion, as
> ours are quite long and complex. I did the automatic conversion in a
> lab, and even though the scripts did work afterwards, they became
> cluttered with extra (and unnecessary) steps, so I decided to clean them
> up manually. Kept running this IPCC4 for some time and had the apps
> thouroughly tested, and once there were no issues, changed the
> production CTI route points to associate with the new server. At this
> point you have to reinstall desktops, and can start rebuilding the
> original server for IPCC4. 

This sounds like a good way to go, and you have the 3.5 server as a
backout. I've been using the v4 editor and it does add a few extra steps
(particularly around the Select Resource step and the identification of
resources. I think our scripts should be OK, but they will need changes to
store XML/Prompt files in the Repository (for HA), rather than on the
local disk.

Cheers,

Matt

-- 
Matthew Melbourne