[cisco-voip] Unity PIMG

[Pat Hayes]

I'd definitely agree that moving to a PIMG integration is desirable, 
both so that you can get off of server 2000 and because they seem to be 
a lot more configurable and flexible.

All of the PIMG/TIMG solutions have the ability to provide 
calling/called party information to Unity, as long as the PBX provides 
it in the first place. In the case of the analog PIMG and the TIMG, the 
call info is passed over a serial link. For digital PIMGs, the PIMG 
emulates a digital phone, so it is able to parse the information from 
the phone's 'display'.

Assuming you've got an analog/serial integration at the moment, moving 
to one or more analog PIMGs is probably the closest 'drop in' solution, 
involving the fewest changes on the PBX side. TIMGs are a little easier 
on the wiring, but you'll have to setup a new T1 on the PBX.

-------- Original Message  --------
From: "Johnson, Ken" <kenjohnson at letu.edu>
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity PIMG
Date: 3/20/2008 3:29 PM

> I have a question for those of you with Unity-PIMG experience.  We 
> continue to run our Unity 4.x infrastructure on both the native 
> CallManager integration and a Dialogic integration with analog ports on 
> our NEC NEAX 2400 PBX.
> 
>  
> 
> We are realizing that as we migrate to Unity 5.x it may be time to put 
> the Dialogic out to pasture – especially to allow us to get off Windows 
> 2000 – however we’re also wondering if we’ll see any management or 
> performance benefits by making this change.  Most specifically – since 
> we currently only have 10 analog ports on the PBX – we’re wondering if 
> we would be best advised to migrate down to the 8-port digital station 
> version of the PIMG or go with the T1.  Our preference is T1/PRI 
> interfaces historically mainly for integration of caller number 
> information, etc – but we weren’t sure if the digital station would 
> include this capability as well (i.e. with either PIMG solution will we 
> be able to eliminate the serial signaling interface for calling number 
> delivery?
> 
>  
> 
> Any other reasons we should either be hesitant to make this change 
> and/or choose the T1 solution vs the digital port version?
> 
>  
> 
> Ken Johnson
>    Mgr. Network Services,
>    Information Technology
>    LeTourneau University
> _________________________________
>  E-mail: kenjohnson at letu.edu
>  Helpdesk: (903) 233-3500
>  Phone: (903) 233-3520
>  Web: http://www.letu.edu/infotech/ <BLOCKED::http://www.letu.edu/infotech/>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip